Talk:Kuči (tribe)

Albanians Stealing History

Can the moderators please contact Kuči tribesman or official Kuč associations from Montenegro and ask them what they think about the nonsence written on this page?

https://xn--plemekui-qbb.me/ (plemekuči.me)

https://www.plemekuci.com/

https://www.facebook.com/PlemeKuci?mibextid=ZbWKwL

https://www.facebook.com/groups/616213385127295/?ref=share&mibextid=CTbP7E

---

Kuči - Pleme Nad Plemenima (Kuči - Tribe Amongst Tribes): https://youtube.com/keN84rrZU7k?si=XbyJfUzaKJJ3hoA7

---

Kučki Katuni - Govor Planine (Kuč Katuns - Voice of the Mountains)

Ep1. https://youtube.com/CtzUwgXyjvE?si=LdcoUlxM2u-QXgpU

Ep2. https://youtube.com/TPiLM0hIK1U?si=7yIjAkYfIxKvdjJH

Ep3. https://youtube.com/zBAgMoZuUuM?si=P3ook9jMZcyteA9-

Ep4. https://youtube.com/vweRB--vZO0?si=9bYvM_sPPnIeKjoG

Ep5. https://youtube.com/RFiSfdhrC84?si=WNiJiDYz2dTqNvK6

---

Zapis - Život Marko Miljanov (Record - The Life of Marko Miljanov):

https://youtube.com/-5gm3QQrUic?si=9xASn22dKB6Fy7Gk

Zapis - Djelo Marka Miljanova (Record - The Works of Marko Miljanov):

https://youtube.com/Duxb9VkSNNk?si=pv5mZLdxyhgThLeP 2405:6E00:2652:6890:FDD7:CBC0:EEC8:F247 (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Intro section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last statement is simple untrue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I never said that there is tag teaming.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old Kuči:

Dedići: Orthodox

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

Paljevići (Dedići): Orthodox

Arovići (Dedići): Muslims

Gudovići (Dedići): Orthodox

Spasojevići (Dedići): Orthodox

Rajkovići (Dedići): Orthodox

Perovići: Orthodox

Stakići: Orthodox

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

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

Vujoševići (Đurđevići): Orthodox

Vukovići (Three different families): All Orthodox

Milići (Vujoševići): Orthodox

Rašovići (Milići): Orthodox

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

Rakovići (Dučići): Orthodox

Cekovići (Dučići): Orthodox

Đurovići (Dučići): Orthodox

Vulevići (Dučići): Orthodox

Ivanovići (Dučići): Orthodox

Dragovići (Dučići): Orthodox

Savovići (Dučići): Orthodox

Mitrovići (Dučići): Orthodox

Nikezići: Orthodox everywhere except in Velja Gorana

Durkovići (Nikezići): Orthodox

Vučevići (Nikezići): Orthodox

Dmitrovići/Mitrovići (Vučevići): Orthodox

Dragovići (Vučevići): Orthodox

Đurići (Vučevići): Orthodox

Perići: Christian, not sure if Orthodox

Kuč (Perići): Christian, not sure if Orthodox

Glavatovići: Orthodox, with minority being muslim

Kuči (Glavatovići): Orthodox

Gašići: Orthodox

Vučinići: Orthodox

Oraovci (Vučinići): Orthodox

Maljevići (Vučinići): Muslims

Drakulovići: Orthodox

Nikočevići: Orthodox

Živkovići: Orthodox

Adžići (Živkovići): Orthodox

Stojanović (Adžić/Adžijić): Orthodox

Milićevići (Živkovići): Orthodox

Maksimovići (Živkovići): Orthodox

Spasojevići (Živkovići): Orthodox

Neljevići: Orthodox, Muslims only in Gusinje

Rajčetići: Orthodox

Arambašići: Orthodox

Kaljevići (Ljuljanovići): Orthodox

Đetkovići (Ljuljanovići): Muslims

Mijovići (Ljuljanovići): Orthodox

Jovanovići (Ljuljanovići): Orthodox

Savići (Ljuljanovići): Orthodox

Gošovići (Ljuljanovići): Orthodox

Bojovići (Ljuljanovići): Orthodox

Prentići (Bojovići): Orthodox

Pakevići (Bojovići): Orthodox

Miljići (Ljuljanovići): Orthodox

Šćepovići (Miljići): Orthodox

Marići (Miljići): Orthodox

Kostovići (Marići): Orthodox

Manojlovići: Orthodox

Krgovići (Manojlovići): Orthodox

Ćetkovići: Orthodox

Nikolići: Orthodox

Pajovići: Orthodox

Zogovići: Orthodox

Krdžići (Zogovići): Orthodox

Draškovići: Orthodox

Perovići: Orthodox

Zonjići: Orthodox

Jusuframići: Muslims

Janjići: Orthodox

Nikolići: Orthodox

Veljovići: Orthodox

Krstovići: Orthodox

Aksovići (Krstovići): Orthodox

Mitrovići (Veljovići): Orthodox

Krstovići (Mrnjavčići): Orthodox

Boškovići (Kostrovići): Orthodox

Krkovići (Kostrovići): Orthodox

Drekalovići:

Drekalovići (main line): Orthodox

Turkovići: Muslims

Vujoševići: Orthodox

Dedići (Vujoševići): Orthodox

Ivanovići (Dedići): Orthodox

Ivanovići: Orthodox

Popovići: Orthodox

Ljakovići: Orthodox

Vuksanovići: Orthodox

Vukoslavovići: Orthodox

Milačići (Vukoslavovići): Orthodox

Čejovići: Orthodox everywhere, few muslims in Ulcinj

Mijovići: Orthodox

Čarapići: Orthodox

Simići: Orthodox

Savovići (Vujoševići): Orthodox

Radovanovići (Čarapići): Orthodox

Božovići (Vujoševići): Orthodox

Vujadinovići (Vujoševići): Orthodox

Rašovići (Vujoševići): Orthodox

Paljevići (Vujoševići): Orthodox

Petrovići (Vujadinovići): Orthodox

Vukovići (Petrovići): Orthodox

Mirovići (Vujadinovići): Orthodox

Marovići (Vujoševići): Orthodox

Jovanovići (Vujoševići): Orthodox

Petrovići: Orthodox

Omerbožovići (Ivanovići): Muslims

Čovići (Ivanovići): Orthodox

Rašovići (Popovići): Orthodox

Lazovići (Vuksanovići): Orthodox

Došovići (Milačići): Orthodox

Nešovići (Milačići): Orthodox

Matovići (Čejovići): Orthodox

Camovići (Čejovići): Orthodox

Paunovići (Camovići): Orthodox

Božovići (Čejovići): Orthodox

Mićkovići (Božovići): Orthodox

Pavićevići (Čejovići): Orthodox

Prelevići (Čejovići): Orthodox

Belojevići (Prelevići): Orthodox

Radovići (Čejovići): Orthodox

Radonjići (Čejovići): Orthodox

Mijovići: Orthodox

Spajići (Mijovići): Orthodox

Begovići (Spajići): Orthodox

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

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

WP:FORUM

He asked for info.

and that’s not even all of the Kuçi brotherhoods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can get the data yourself from MONSTAT.

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

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

So, to give TLDR:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What we have here is:

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

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

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

Yet, you provide no info, only your POV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  were an Albanian tribe

  Are of Albanian origin

  Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Alltan

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

  How am I being defensive? Aren’t you you the one who accused me of not warning another user because he is my countryman? And when I asked you said you could but wouldn’t respond? [1]

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

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

  How am I being defensive?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pohara Kuča / Ravaging of the Kuči tribe

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

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

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

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

Consensus

Ok, let's get a consensus @Maleschreiber.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

And that's what the origins of tribe are.

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

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

another source observed the linguistic Slavicization of the converts.

I didn't remove that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those people just dissapeared i guess, by your OR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're discussing with me as if I have a specific POV, but I don't have any. This is the version of the article I wrote in 2020: Kuči is not a tribe (pleme) of the same patrilineal ancestry. Rather, as many other tribes in the region, it formed as consecutive waves of groups settled in the area and formed the Kuči community. [2] The quotes about Slavic anthroponymy were first written by me. You're pushing for a similar version to what I wrote 4 years ago, but I've changed my opinion since then because at the time we didn't have the extensive genealogical research which we have today. My 2020 opinion was shown to be wrong by the genealogical data of three genealogical projects (Serbian, Albanian, Bosniak) and you need to actually read them and understand what they mean.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still, no academic sources on origin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A similar discussion was had a couple of years ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s a fringe theory source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I deleted sources? Care to explain?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for the village Kuçi recorded in 1416-1417

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At what point are you going to drop the stick?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One source does not change the scholarly consensus.

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

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

Never said they were Slavic in origin. Sorry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sourcing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could you share the page with me?

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

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

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

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

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

Ḳarye-i Ḳuçi ez cemā'at-i Arnavudān

Petro Ḳuçi, Niḳola Ḳoḳla, Yorgi Ranesi

And:

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

Ḳarye-i Ḳuçi ez cemā'at-i Arnavudān

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

Thanks!

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

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

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

Franciscan Report

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

RfC on origin of the tribe

Kuči (tribe) (link because the one in title is broken). We have a disagreement on the origin of Kuči tribe. Currently, the article states that the tribe is Albanian in origin, but no citations address the claim directly. Current citations are based on language report 2 centuries after creation of the tribe. I tried dispute resolution but editors mentioned didn't want to participate and just ignored it. Should we change origins to mixed? I will provide more info in a reply to this RfC

Edit (02.09.2024.): While waiting for neutral responses, three editors started hastily adding sources and modifying the article, without any discussion whether or not they should be added. Some of the sources are very weak, basically being a 5 words citation that confirms their POV. Some of the sources have nothing to do with origin itself, and some of them cite articles wrong, which i gave proof in the talk page, but they were added anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setxkbmap (talk • contribs) 01:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

02:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC) Setxkbmap (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Sources and citations i wanted to implement and to cite instead of the current citations that address the claim directly (none):

1. Bojka Đukanović - Historical Dictionary of Montenegro, page 190: According to their ethnic origins, the Kuči tribe is a mixture of Slavic and Albanian population. [3](screenshot of a page section)

2. Stanoje Stanojević - Narodna enciklopedija srpsko-hrvatsko-slovenac̆ka - Page 554: K. are an old Serb tribe. It was formed by Serb brotherhoods that moved from Zeta valley, where it was first living, and then spread to territory of K. They found two Vlach tribes Bukumiri and Mataguži, who were pushed away and then partly assimilated. In record from 1455. when Kuči are first mentioned as a tribe, it's said that they are of orthodox faith. Kuči celebrate Nikoljdan. Only the name Kuči is not of Serb origin. It's either obtained from population that here before, or they got it from Albanian label, which in their language means great, unsurpassed. From 15. century, running away from the Turks, many families from surrounding countries arrive, first Serbs and Albanians, and later only Serbs who were running away from Albanians. Out of 22 families who moved between 15th and 17th century to Kuči, only 4 are known to be of Albanian origin.[4](screenshot of a page section)

3. Predrag Petrovic - Vojvoda Radonja Petrović, Guvernadur Brda, page 30: Kuči, as one of key tribal societies in Brda region, have their own specific traits in comparison to other tribes from the ethnic standpoint. Core of the tribe which is formed around middle of XV century, or maybe even few decades before, are native brotherhoods who are not connected, but are of Slavic-Serb origin, and populate region of castle Medun and a couple of Vlach lineages in mountainous and region around it, who were mixing with each other before arrival of Mrnjavčevići. Later, after Turkish occupation and formation of Kuči nahia, in territorial and administrative region, was included a couple of Albanian, catholic brotherhoods in Trieshi, who joined tribal community of Kuči, and so that created a heterogeneous ethnic composition of Kuči, which was also religiously heterogeneous. [5](screenshot of a page section)

4. Andrey N. Sobolev - Southeastern European Languages and Cultures in Contact: Between Separation and Symbiosis (Language Contact and Bilingualism) - Page 96: Compare with the Kuči who had been an Orthodox Serbian tribe until the 15th century. Through the 15th to 17th century several Albanian (Catholic) and Serbian (Orthodox and Catolic) groups from other areas settled in their tribal territory. The population in the region had been a long time bilingual, but shifted to monolingualism due to the gradual Slavicization of Albanians. A bilingual situation now exists only in the small area of Koći/Koje, which is inhabited by Albanians and Albanized Serbs.[6](screenshot of a page section)

5. Rašović Marko - Kuči Tribe: Ethnographic-Historical Overview - describing period before 15th century and formation of a tribal society, page 30 And so the Serbs somewhere started living among Vlachs, and in other places pushed them further into the mountains. In todays region of Kuči, we can find proof that it was the second case.[7](screenshot of a page section)

describing period of tribe formation, 15th century, page 35 By the end of XV and during the XVI century begins big change in the composition of the population of Kuči. New brotherhoods and families are moving into Kuči, many of noble blood, running away from Turks. Poem from Petar Petrović Njegoš These newcomers were Serbs and Albanians, brave and energetic people, champions of uncompromised battle against the Turks. Almost all of them came here as well established brotherhoods, who forcibly take their place amongst the old Kuči, and then later, they spread and forced older families to move. Many of those who left Kuči later accepted Islam out of spite or as a revenge to those who exiled them from Kuči. As it was the case with most Serb tribes, the newcomers showed much more life than the old population and they grew bigger and spread even beyond the border of old Kuči territory. They pushed old Kuči into the shade, and pushed themselves as "real Kuči", carrying and defending that name with the same pride as their predecessors, old Kuči. By the mid XVIII century they already spread the territory of Kuči to their current borders, as it can be seen under the title "borders" Image on the other page. That's how new age of Kuči history had two events: New arrivals and spread.

From the first half of XV century to the end of XVII century, 23 brotherhoods moved to Kuči, out of which only one brotherhood, Čigomani, moved out. Out of other 22 brotherhoods, 4 are of Albanian origin: Geg, Koći, Boneći, Nuculovići.[8](screenshot of a page section)

6. Karl Kaser, Hirten, Kämpfer, Stammeshelden - Bei der Aufspaltung seines umfangreichen Katuns grenzten sich zuerst wahrscheinlich die Sommersiedlungen ab. Es scheint, als ob im Jahr 1455 der Territorialisierungsprozeß der abgespalteten Gemeinschaften abgeschlossen gewesen wäre. Die Gemeinschaft der Mataguži, die zu Beginn des 15. Jahrhunderts noch existiert hatte, ging später unter. Die Hoti-Gemeinschaft hatte zu Beginn des 15. Jahrhunderts bereits einige Katune vereinigt. Im Jahr 1485 wurden in den vereinigten Katunen 8 Dörfer und 134 Häuser gezählt. Der unmittelbare Urahne der Kuči sollte ein Grča Nenadin gewesen sein. Der ursprünglich nicht sehr umfangreiche Katun expandierte durch serbische Zusiedler im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert rasch. Die Zusiedler (unter ihnen die Dobroäani, tigomani, Deljani, Bulatoviei, Miloviei usw.) intergrierten sich rasch und nahmen auch den Namen der Kuči an. Im Jahr 1485 waren die Kuči 8 Dörfer mit 253 Häuser; 1497 waren es bereits um 150 Häuser mehr, und aus den 8 Dörfern waren 9 Katune und 2 Dörferentstanden.

Karl actually confirms same thing, that the tribe is formed in the later part of 15th century, and that not very big katun expended rapidly due to Serbian settlers. He also claims, like some other scholars, that the supposed ancestor of Kuci is Grca Nenadin, who is not written down as part of Nenads family in 1416. and there are no written records of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setxkbmap (talk • contribs) 13:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Also the article itself says that the tribe was not formed until 15th century, sources shows that it happened in the second part of it, and first data we have on the tribe from that period shows mixed population. It's also quoted in the article itself, search for defters. Setxkbmap (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Some of the sources cited in the article have been discussed in this very TP, the problem appears to lie with your disapproval of the primary sources which some of the cited academics use. However, as mentioned prior, whether or not you agree with the primary sources used by an academic in coming to their conclusion is largely irrelevant as long as the source is RS. Furthermore, if there are other RS which criticise the use of said primary sources then, by all means, please cite them; otherwise critiques simply become OR.

As for the sources themselves, while Xhufi (2013) does use the 17th century Franciscan report, he also relies on other documents including the defter of 1485:

Relacion i Marin Bolicës, viti 1614: "Del rito romano, n. 490 Chuzzi Albanesi" (I. Zamputi, Relacione, I, f. 272). Në Defterin e Sanxhakut të Shkodrës 1485, përmendet një fshat i madh me emrin Kuç, banorët e të cilit mbajnë në shumicë emra qartësisht shqiptarë, si Gjon, Kol, Pal, Gjergj, Gjin, Dedë, Lek, Marin, Nikollë etj. Shih: S. Pulaha, Defteri sanxhakut të Shkodrës i vitit 1485..., f. 386. Viti 1652: "Ma favellando delle quattro popolationi de Piperi, Brattonisi, Bielopaulouicchi e Cuechi, liquali et il loro gran ualore nell'armi danno segno di esser de sangue Albanese e a tale dalli Albanesi sono tenuti", shih: T. Lewicki, "Un manuscrit iconnu du XVII siècle concernant l'Albanie et l'histoire des missions franciscaines dans ce pays", extrait de la Revue des Études Islamiques, année 1948, Paris (Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner): 1949, f. 57. Një dokument i vitit 1699 dallon midis "Kuçëve të vegjël" katolikë, dhe "Kuçëve të mëdhenj", ortodoksë, të cilët jetonin në një "konfederatë" të përbashkët: "diro de Cucci piccoli overo la populatione detta Triepsci sono da 60 case in crica. Per quanto ho inteso sono cattolici quantunque vi siano poche case de Turchi et sono confederati con li Cucci grandi scismatici", shih: M. Jačov, Le missioni cattoliche... vëll. II, f. 712.

Curtis (2012), on the other hand, does not rely on the 17th century report whatsoever when writing the following:

On the other hand, there are some areas, particularly in Montenegro, where Albanian-speaking populations have shifted to Slavic-speaking ones, such as the tribes of Piperi and Kuči, the Slavic Muslim populations in Plav/Plavë and Gusinje/Gucia, and perhaps with the Mrković.

Instead, it appears that Curtis is basing his opinion on the findings of other academics such as Šufflay (1924) and Omari (1989).

Throughout the article other sources noting an Albanian origin are cited, such as the various works by Pulaha (1974, 1975). Similar opinions are also stated by Đurđev (1984) quoted above in the TP.

In regard to the sources which you have cited, at least 2 appear to not be RS from a quick search. Firstly, much of Stanojević's works were published in the early 1900s with editions of the Great National Encyclopedia of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes being published in 1928. This is not a modern academic source. Secondly, Petrović is not an academic source. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

the problem appears to lie with your disapproval of the primary sources which some of the cited academics use.

Not really, those primary sources are ok, they just say nothing of origin. For example, even in the period of that quote there are others that say stuff like:

Rastislav Petrović - Pleme Kuči 1684-1796 - Marin Bici, the archbishop of Bar and primate of Serbia send a report to Rome in 1610. in which he states that Albanian highlanders are exclusively Catholic and are split into five tribes: Kelmendi, Hoti,Grude,Kastrati and Shkreli, while Kuči are half "schismatics" (orthodox) and half Catholics

In 1660. a report says: bordering with Kelmendi, i will talk about little Kuči (Cucci picoli) or how they are called by the people Triepshi, who are controlled by Turkish city of Podgorica. They are comprised of 60 houses, and as far as i've heard, are all catholic, with a small number of turkish families. They are in union with "big Kuči", who are all schismatics. A. Prop. Fide, SC, Albania, vol. 1, fol. 82--94, and Rastislav Petrović.

Rastislav argues that the fact that there are two types of Kuči (Kuči proper or "Big Kuči" and "Small Kuči" or Triepshi how they call themselves) cause confusion in these reports and claim that whole of Kuči was Catholic was a mistake.

Bartolomeo da Costacaro, a missionary in Grude tribe, send a message to Venetian state in the middle of 17th century, that says: They helped venetian lords during the war. Amongst them, there is one of our missions that counts 300 houses of our religion, but not only that they have thousands of houses under their rule, but many surrounding villages. A. Prop. Fide, Scritture originali riferite nelle Congregazioni generali, vol. 464

Rastislav argues on page 26, that the number of Catholic houses is artificially increased, so that Holy See would help the tribe more. He comes to this conclusion by citing other reports from catholic missionaries that say that in Triepshi there are only 100-150 houses.

he also relies on other documents including the defter of 1485

Does he? I see he talks about some kind of village, not the tribe itself. Pulaha talked about tribe and defters, and came to conclusion that tribe had mixed anthroponyms, which is cited in the article.

Curtis (2012), on the other hand, does not rely on the 17th century report whatsoever when writing the following: On the other hand, there are some areas, particularly in Montenegro, where Albanian-speaking populations have shifted to Slavic-speaking ones, such as the tribes of Piperi and Kuči, the Slavic Muslim populations in Plav/Plavë and Gusinje/Gucia, and perhaps with the Mrković.

And i don't disagree. The tribe was mixed, and there was definitely a process of slavicisation that made this tribe more monolingual, as it is today.

such as Šufflay (1924)

He states:

Old Vlach tribes are assimilated. Amalgamation between Serbs and Albanians continues to this day. Most famous is the example of Kuči tribe, for which in 1610. was said >>Half orthodox, half Albanian<< (questi Dalmatini et Cucci la meta di quali di quali e scismatica e l' altra latina)

Similar opinions are also stated by Đurđev (1984) quoted above in the TP

Đurđev states nothing of origin. The citation you have in this TP is this:

pa se tu nalazi Petar Kuč, starešina roda od kojeg su postali Kuči which is translated to And there lives Petar Kuč, head of clan from which Kuči became

The article itself disagrees with this, and only lists Petar Kuč as a possibility. Tribe formed almost 200 years later, and was not formed by him, nor it was formed only by his descendants if the theory is correct.

In regard to the sources which you have cited, at least 2 appear to not be RS from a quick search. Firstly, much of Stanojević's works were published in the early 1900s with editions of the Great National Encyclopedia of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes being published in 1928.

Article is using even older sources, i see no problem with this. Also, many sources are websites.

For example, we are quoting Jireček, or as i've seen one of your favorite writers, Edith Durham. But, we should let other editors who are new to this come and make their own conclusions. Setxkbmap (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

You are ignoring primary sourcing on which the consensus of the vast majority of modern western scholarship is based on. I can find 10 times more sources quoting Kuçi as Albanian in origin in passing, but through years of working on this article, such sources were never needed as all primary sourcing and secondary studies of those have been conclusive enough to prove an Albanian origin. Serbian academia have claimed trubes such as Hoti, Kelmendi, Shala and others as being Serbian in origin. We simply can’t rely on them. Alltan (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

How very nationalistic of them. It's a good thing i am quoting only people who don't push their nationalistic views, and see tribe as a mix of cultures. Setxkbmap (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The nationalist part IS the fact Serbian sources claim it to be a Serb tribe which got Albanized. Or better yet, claiming it to have been some sort of a Slav-Albanian symbiosis originally, which is also just used to negate any Albanian character of Kuçi. This also includes academics who use anachronistic names for Kuçi, using the Slavicised, later version Kuči instead. Including some of those you have posted. It’s simply not productive to perpetuate academia which is essentially based on Albaniphobic authors like Cvijic and Erdeljanovic. Alltan (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, i can't take you seriously or think that you are neutral if you are using Albanian variation of the name, instead of English. I will wait for other editors. Setxkbmap (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Kuçi is just as neutral and valid as Kuči. If the Albanian variation offends you to the point you are unwilling to TAKE ME SERIOUSLY, that says a lot about the nature of this RfC. You don’t have to like the fact Kuçi has been the tribes name for a lot longer than Kuči, neither do I have to like it. But it won’t change what credible sources have said on the matter. Our job is to give due weight to the reliable ones. Alltan (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Kuçi is just as neutral and valid as Kuči. If the Albanian variation offends you to the point you are unwilling to TAKE ME SERIOUSLY, that says a lot about the nature of this RfC.

It doesn't offend me, it's same as any Serb nationalist coming here and calling them Кучи. I wouldn't like that, as i prefer name that is in the title of this article. The nature of this RfC is there because of failed dispute resolution which has been ignored by few editors here, one of which is you. Administrators agreed with me that this RfC is needed, so i created one.

There's no reason for frustration or further discussion. We shall wait. Setxkbmap (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Kuçi, Kuči, Кучи are all valid and do not cause me to not take someone seriously.

FYI, an RFC exists when reliable sources have a disagreement on a matter, not if one editor tries to push through fringe theories into an article. But we have plenty of time, that is for sure. Alltan (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, i will have to close this then and tell admins they advised me wrong. Setxkbmap (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Editors (myself included) have in fact replied to your previous queries and presented the necessary sources, this can be seen in the above discussions. The issue is that you do not appear to be in agreeance with these sources as valid, for which you need to provide academic sources in order to disprove. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that you do not appear to be in agreeance with these sources as valid,

We are not in agreeance

for which you need to provide academic sources in order to disprove.

I provided sources stating otherwise.

For example, my favorite quote from Bojka Djukanovic, Historical Dictionary of Montenegro: According to their ethnic origins, the Kuči tribe is a mixture of Slavic and Albanian population.

That is the newest academic source on this topic. Setxkbmap (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, although you need to provide scholarly arguments and sources as to why the claims of the aforementioned academics (which, for now, form a consensus) are incorrect and invalid.

I can similarly discredit Đukanović by stating that they only mention the origin of Kuči in passing and do not provide further explanation or sources in support of their claims. The others, however, do provide archival material in support of their assertions. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, although you need to provide scholarly arguments and sources as to why the claims of the aforementioned academics (which, for now, form a consensus) are incorrect and invalid.I can similarly discredit Đukanović by stating that they only mention the origin of Kuči in passing and do not provide further explanation or sources in support of their claims. The others, however, do provide archival material in support of their assertions.

Rastislav actually gives you sources and archival material for his quotes, on which he is basing his opinions.

And i do not try to discredit sources that are currently in the article, i say they are mostly based on a language report 150 years after formation of the tribe. While i can find sources that agree with that report, or disagree, i think that the report itself is way past the time of tribe creation. I still think that the report itself is VALID, it doesn't matter whether or not it was true, and i am completely fine with keeping that in the article, including all the citations and sources for that.

In my opinion, the origin section of the tribe is written in a bad way, as it first talks about Franciscian report in 17th century, while i think it would be better to start with first mentions of the name (village of Kuči near Shkodra) and first mentions of the tribe (Zetski Zbor in 1455.). But, we disagree on these topics, and that's the reason for RfC. Setxkbmap (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The sources aren't "mostly based on a language report", Xhufi simply mentions it among other sources. As I showed before, Curtis among others do not make reference to the report.

Discussions of the tribe's origin should begin with the 1330 attestation, as this is the consensus in academia. Personal opinions are irrelevant here. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussions of the tribe's origin should begin with the 1330 attestation, as this is the consensus in academia. Personal opinions are irrelevant here.

I am not stating an opinion of when the discussion should begin, but opinion on the position of those discussion in an article.

That is part of an opinion. There's no book that will tell us in what order we should put our facts.

I just think that chronological order is better than what is currently here. Setxkbmap (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Bojka Djukanovic is a historical dictionary it appears, aka WP:TERTIARY Alltan (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Now if you read the above copy-paste carefully, you would realise that there are no primary sources that contradict each other, with all the other sources being either not RS and part of Serbian nationalist historiography, or being about language spoken in Kuçi the material of which is already included in the article. Maleschreiber added another western RS on the subject and your response was “really 1 source”.

Well yeah, sometimes 1 good source trumps 5 80 year old nationalist tertiary encyclopedias. Alltan (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Now if you read the above copy-paste carefully, you would realise that there are no primary sources that contradict each other, with all the other sources being either not RS and part of Serbian nationalist historiography, or being about language spoken in Kuçi the material of which is already included in the article.

Sorry, but just because you disagree with something doesn't make it not RS. Rastislav Petrović actively disagrees with what's provided by Bolizza, and gives other reports from that period.

Sobolev talks about origin of Kuči, and talks about mixed population from 15th to 17th century.

And Bojka is there to clarify and more easily merge all the info we have into a neutral POV statement: Kuči are of ethnic mixed origin.

Also, while we are discussing all of this, i still stand by the fact that article itself states that tribe was formed at the end of 15th century, and defters from that period show mixed population. I am not even sure why you are arguing here, when there was dispute resolution open, you showed lack of will to discuss. Setxkbmap (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, we shouldn't treat this as a forum and present our own arguments on whether or not primary sources are valid, that is OR. Your issue is with the primary sources used by the cited academics, as is made clear here as well since you continue your critique. However, if there are academics that have made these critiques, then please cite them.

Xhufi does rely on the 1485 defter in his conclusion, it is cited in p. 40 of his paper where he lists medieval Albanian tribes. As for Đurđev, this is the full quote:

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

This passage discusses the Albanian katun recorded in 1330, and is relevant as he notes that a number of tribes emerged from this Albanian community; Kuči being among them as the quote you presented testifies to. What's relevant here isn't necessarily Petar Kuč, but rather the fact that Đurđev considers the Kuči to have originated from an Albanian pastoralist community. Again, what matters here is academic opinion, not our own opinions.

As for older citations, simply because some are in the articles does not mean that we should use them. I am not opposed to some older sources being removed. It would be ideal if we use modern academic works instead. Also, I don't have great opinions of Durham but that's besides the point. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:AGEMATTERS should not be disregarded. Alltan (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, otherwise we could use sources such as Hassert (1893) which states the following:

The Kuči are divided into two main tribes, the Kuči Drekalovići and the Kuči Krajna, and are Albanians by origin, who have given up their mother tongue and most of their native customs in favour of the Montenegrin language and customs. However, the majority have remained faithful to the Roman Catholic faith and have therefore sometimes been in sharp conflict with the strictly Orthodox Crnogorcs.

However, I have chosen not to use this source in the article due to its age and the fact that modern academic sources should be applied instead. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a great source, but incorrect, as the this article already establishes that the last major conversion to orthodoxy was in 17th century and that from that point on there were no larger conversions back to the Catholicism.

At the end of the 19th century Stevan Ducic, tribesman himself, wrote that there was 1500 families in the tribe, and around 9000 people. Out of 1500 families, 224 were Albanians and he states that those live in a separate part of the tribe, called "Zatrijebac" (Trieshi). Setxkbmap (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:FORUM. I mentioned this source to prove the point that we shouldn't use older and dated sources despite the fact that they contain statements that some may deem accurate. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Not a forum, i am just stating a better source that had access to population and direct contact with them.

Older sources can be valid, this one is not. Setxkbmap (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hassert was also in direct contact with them, however, this is beyond the scope of this discussion. We should discuss the opinions of academics in relation to the relevant subject matter. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Setxkbmap (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

In support of an Albanian origin, Malcolm states the following in Rebels, Believers, Survivors: Studies in the History of the Albanians (2020):

The foundation-stories of some of the Montenegrin Slavophone clans declared that they had common ancestors with Albanian clans, and the case of Kuçi, who were transformed over a long period from Albanian-speakers to Slavophones, is well known. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

That source is actually OK and i feel like it addresses the claim directly.

The full quote is:

Since the Ottoman documentary evidence so closely matches the chronology suggested by the oral histories, it may perhaps be worth taking seriously some of the other details given in Bogdani’s account. According to Bogdani, the original Kelmend was the son of a Serbian father and an Albanian mother (from the Kuci clan); his sons wrested control of their area of settlement from ‘the Slavs:' There is nothing inherently improbable about this; for a long time, the northern-most part of the Malési was an area of ethnic interchange and osmosis. The foundationstories of some of the Montenegrin Slavophone clans declared that they had common ancestors with Albanian clans, and the case of the Kuci, who were transformed over a long period from Albanian-speakers to Slavophones, is well known.

His claim is referencing Edith Durham which is currently included in the article Setxkbmap (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The portion regarding Kelmendi is irrelevant to the discussion and this in fact isn't the entire paragraph. The full passage is:

Since the Ottoman documentary evidence so closely matches the chronology suggested by the oral histories, it may perhaps be worth taking seriously some of the other details given in Bogdani’s account. According to Bogdani, the original Kelmend was the son of a Serbian father and an Albanian mother (from the Kuçi clan); his sons wrested control of their area of settlement from 'the Slavs'. There is nothing inherently improbable about this; for a long time, the northern-most part of the Malësi was an area of ethnic interchange and osmosis. The foundation-stories of some of the Montenegrin Slavophone clans declared that they had common ancestors with Albanian clans, and the case of the Kuçi, who were transformed over a long period from Albanian-speakers to Slavophones, is well known. In the case of the Kelmendi, the Ottoman register of 1497 does include a significant number of Slav names, such as Radenko, Radko and Vlad, suggesting at least that this population had long been in contact with Slavs; but the overall pattern of personal names here indicates that these people were definitely Albanian-speaking and Catholic. Albanian-speaking Catholics is what the Kelmendi have remained throughout more than 500 years of their subsequent history (the only exceptions being the small minority who converted to Islam, and the descendants of the emigrants to Srijem, who eventually became Croat-speakers). The attempt by the early-twentieth-century Serbian historian Jovan Tomić to argue that all Kelmendi were 'really' Serbs, simply on the basis of Bogdani's remark about the father of the original Kelmend, was just a peculiarly gross example of ethnic pseudo-classification for political purposes. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's irrelevant. I just quoted from the start until the part you cited came, which is just Edith Durham's claim, as can be seen in the book. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Setxkbmap is making a good point here. The current version urgently requires an upgrade and better balance (POV elements and such). — Sadko (words are wind) 13:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  What would you propose?

  I have to ask you now because the RfC is being crowded by comments from editors who are the reason why this RfC is requested. Setxkbmap (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: The RfC is malformed because there is nothing in the OP which can be discussed via Support/Oppose. Bibliography reliability in most cases is not an RfC subject and it's not subject to voting. Stanoje Stanojević - Narodna enciklopedija srpsko-hrvatsko-slovenac̆ka has never been and will never be included in the article because it's not WP:RS. It's a Yugoslav encyclopedia published in 1928 and reflects the strong Serb nationalist POV of its era. By definition, such sources aren't RS and RS can't be overridden via voting. Wikipedia is not a democracy. There are plenty of sources which describes the tribe as Albanian in the article, hence even the original premise of the OP is false: the article states that the tribe is Albanian in origin, but no citations address the claim directly.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  You were invited to the dispute resolution, you ignored it. I talked to administrators, they advised me to use RfC as they also felt like citations for claim were needed.

  So no, it can be support/oppose. People can support rewrite and implementation of a neutral POV which states that tribe was mixed in origin (even that scary nationalistic POV doesn't state that the tribe was formed by the Serbs, but claims that during 15th century which was period of creation of this tribe, many families and brotherhood moved into the territory of old Kuči and those were both Slavic and Albanian) Setxkbmap (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  • It can't be support/oppose to include sources which don't pass WP:RS criteria and the RfC doesn't even have an actual question to discuss. I've added one more RS - in the long list of sources - Sundhaussen, Holm (1993). "Nationsbildung und Nationalismus im Donau-Balkan-Raum". Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte. 48: 237. Diese Mehrsprachigkeit erklärt uns auch die im ganzen Wanderhirtenbereich so häufige Erscheinung des fließenden Volkstums : Aromunen - Wlachen werden zu Griechen , Serben , Bulgaren , Kroa- ten ; Albaner werden zu Serben ( Kuči ) , Bulgaren , Griechen ; Zinzaren werden zu Griechen , Serben usw. [This multilingualism also explains the phenomenon of fluid ethnicity that is so common throughout the nomadic pastoralist area: Aromanian Vlachs become Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, Croats; Albanians become Serbs (Kuči), Bulgarians, Greeks; Zinzars become Greeks, Serbs, etc.]--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

    It can't be support/oppose to include sources which don't pass WP:RS criteria and the RfC doesn't even have an actual question to discuss.

    Which is why i provided many other sources.

    I've added one more RS - in the long list of sources

    Really only 1 source, not "long list". But thanks for the showcase of how this page is being edited. Without any consensus if it confirms your own POV. If, in fact, someone posts another academic source, it's being denied and editor is forced to infinitely argue until they just stop. Setxkbmap (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

    • 2,3,5 aren't RS by definition. 1 is RS, but a tertiary source. What the author discusses is already part of the article with more details. 4 is RS and what it discusses is already discussed in the language section. I added the source because it is RS. You can add Sobolev in the language section without any prior discussion. You didn't need any sort of RfC about Sobolev because there's nothing written by Sobolev which is different from what already exists in the article: This is especially apparent in the dialects of Kuči and Bratonožići, largely because of the historic bilingualism that was present in the area.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      but a tertiary source

      Still valid by wiki rules, sorry.

      You didn't need any sort of RfC about Sobolev

      Compare with the Kuči who had been an Orthodox Serbian tribe until the 15th century. Through the 15th to 17th century several Albanian (Catholic) and Serbian (Orthodox and Catolic) groups from other areas settled in their tribal territory.

      You would accept this? Not so sure...

      You see, if we are quoting Edith Durham for that same thing, i see no reason we shouldn't quote older sources that claim otherwise as well.

      I also want to cite Rastislav Petrovic, and quotes are in the response to one of other editors. He doesn't directly address the claim, he opposes current citations and opinions based on language report and religion. Setxkbmap (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Actually in this case the Tertiary source is clearly not valid as 1.) the primary sources do not contradict each other 2.) the secondary RS sources do not contradict each other. Adding a tertiary source which states the opposite or what is in the article is not in accordance with any wiki policy. Alltan (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      the primary sources do not contradict each other, the secondary RS sources do not contradict each other.

      Sobolev contradicts what is being said in the source that Maleschreiber provided, Lazaro Soranzo who is primary source from 16th century still talks about multiethnic society. Rastislav Petrovic disagrees with Bolizza and what was said in the article itself.

      So yeah, not really "clearly not valid". Sorry. Setxkbmap (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      It appears Sobolev is quoting Jovan Erdeljanovic (1907), a fervent anti Albanian. No wonder he claimed the Koja as being Albanised Serbs. I can recognize that quote anywhere, @Maleschreiber the source is WP:FRINGE. That’s the equivalent of me posting quotes the Rovčani are Serbianised Albanians or that the Drobnjaci where mixed Slavic-Albanian. Not going down that route. Alltan (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      No wonder he claimed the Koja as being Albanised Serbs.

      Nope, Sobolev actually calls Koja e Kucit Albanians. Which they are.

      That’s the equivalent of me posting quotes the Rovčani are Serbianised Albanians or that the Drobnjaci where mixed Slavic-Albanian. Not going down that route.

      Sure. Feel free to do so, i don't really care what you do with other articles as long as you are not vandalazing.

      Enjoy it! Setxkbmap (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Really? Can you provide the quote for that? Alltan (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      A bilingual situation now exists only in the small area of Koći/Koje, which is inhabited by Albanians and Albanized Serbs

      So quote it correctly next time, please. Setxkbmap (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Albanised serbs who are bilingual, exactly Erdeljanovics claim. This is completely against any serious research on the Koja, using a source like this to push a POV for an article like Kuçi is… not an improvement to say the least. Alltan (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Albanised serbs who are bilingual, exactly Erdeljanovics claim. This is completely against any serious research on the Koja, using a source like this to push a POV for an article like Kuçi is… not an improvement to say the least.

      Good thing this has nothing to do with Koja.

      Again, none of the sources i provided state anything against Albanians, in fact they all tell a story of Serb and Albanian migrations during 15th century, and explain that those migrations were happening until 17th century.

      Defters confirm that, both first and the second. Setxkbmap (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      The difference is that if i find a source which calls Dronnjaci, Rovcani, Ozrinici and Kelmendi Albanian, i got the common courtesy to not use that source even for the Kelmendi. Because there is a difference between personal biased and what we would like to see in an article, and that which will actually IMPROVE an article. Alltan (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Defters just show Slavic and Albanian names, which is the case in Kelmendi too. Are they of mixed origins now too? Alltan (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Well, i am not really sure about Kelmendi tribe, but as we've seen there are claims by Bogdani that original Kelmend was of Serb origin. Now, i don't really care about that article, as i am not really that into reading about Albanian tribes, but i do in fact know that the northern Albania had a lot of Slavic influence, and many toponyms even have Slavic names to this day. But, WP:FORUM

      But it's not only defters, as we've seen Rastislav shows other proofs :) Setxkbmap (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Look you really need to find reliable sources on this matter because Pjeter Bogdanis claim has been already debunked in previous discussions of this article. Now if you wanna question the Albanian origins of Kelmendi, find yourself some proper sources. Issue is just like with Kuçi, there are none. Alltan (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Look you really need to find reliable sources on this matter because Pjeter Bogdanis claim has been already debunked in previous discussions of this article. Now if you wanna question the Albanian origins of Kelmendi, find yourself some proper sources.

      I don't, as i've said, i don't really care about Albanian tribes. It's not my cup of tea.

      Issue is just like with Kuçi, there are none

      We'll let RfC decide. Setxkbmap (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      RFC does not decide anything if you haven't put forth reliable sourcing on your proposal. And even the ones which could theoretically pass as such, are fringe at best. Wikipedia is not a democracy and you can not canvass other editors to force through a change meanwhile accusing a whole bunch of other editors of being nationalist POV pushers. Alltan (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      RFC does not decide anything if you haven't put forth reliable sourcing on your proposal.

      RfC is there to decide whether sources are good enough.

      And even the ones which could theoretically pass as such, are fringe at best.

      Again, not for you to decide.

      Wikipedia is not a democracy and you can not canvass other editors to force through a change meanwhile accusing a whole bunch of other editors of being nationalist POV pushers.

      I agree, it's not a democracy. That's why i don't really care whether you and 3 other editors that are reverting edits claim that origin of tribe is WP:BLUESKY and decline to read any other POV. It's not about the number of people reverting the changes, it's about making sure that reader gets the best possible info.

      Again, i tried with dispute resolution, you didn't respond. I talked to administrators, they agreed that the best course of action would be RfC. Setxkbmap (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      The issue is that what you are trying to do can not be implemented into the article because unlike the current version, they lack proper sources. Every single source you have put through has flaws in them. RfC is fine, but believe me, if you showed reliable modern sources which support a mixed origin of the tribe which are based on primary sourcing I would be the first one to add them to the article. Issue is that I have searched for such sources for a long time. And so have many other editors. Which is also why all the names you have listed above have been proposed and pretty much immedeatly dropped because it was obvious they don't fulfil the articles standards. And this cycle can continue for many more years until some people WP:DROPTHESTICK. Alltan (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Because there is a difference between personal biased and what we would like to see in an article

      You forced change in Drekalovići article, which is related to this one, claiming that the brotherhood was once tribe. Then, you used that to implement the brotherhood into Albanian tribes. When i asked you for source, you ignored it (because there are none). I fixed that. If i had to guess, i would guess that it was a personal biased wish and info.

      Also, Erdeljanović you claim is nationalistic is quoted few times in this article, but it's in accordance with your POV so it's not an issue i guess. Setxkbmap (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Ok first of all WP:FORUM, keep your personal opinions of me to yourself.

      And secondly YES Erdeljanovic is blatantly nationalistic and this has been recognized in THIS article itself. It’s literally there. Alltan (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Ok first of all WP:FORUM, keep your personal opinions of me to yourself.

      It's really importnant for us to continue discussion to assume each others good will. If you modify articles without any communication to promote your POV, and you decline to be part of dispute resolutions, it's really hard to do so.

      And secondly YES Erdeljanovic is blatantly nationalistic and this has been recognized in THIS article itself. It’s literally there.

      Erdeljanović thinks that many tribes go back to the pre - Slavic times since their names suggest Wlach or Albanian origins, e.g. Kuči, and perhaps Bratonožići, Sotonići, Paštrovići, and others.

      This is literally in the article. It's been there for years. It's there because Erdeljanović is good if he is enforcing current POV :) Setxkbmap (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Indeed Bratonozici were Albanian in origin, Pastrovici were either Vlach or Albanian however the multiple mentions of Albanians in the area and their usage of kanun, besa, albanian names and likely albanian originating name points to the latter, and Sotonici although they dont have an articlie are also known as Sotoniči Dukađinci because yes they are most likely Albanian.

      However even if Erdeljanovic claimed them to be Serbs, that wouldnt change the fact of the matter at all because we do not need Erdeljanovic to come to a conclusion on these tribes. That does not make him RS. Please research Erdeljanovic a bit before trying to use sourced based off of him in this article. Alltan (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      However even if Erdeljanovic claimed them to be Serbs, that wouldnt change the fact of the matter at all because we do not need Erdeljanovic to come to a conclusion on these tribes.

      He didn't. You should really read before commenting on a book.

      While Erdeljanović does talk about the region of the tribe, after describing fall of Serbian state and end of Skenderbeg's Albania he says:

      great number of these people ran to the mountains and highlands of Albanian Malesia and Serb Brda and Montenegro. That's when Kuči got great number of newcomers, Serbs and Albanians.

      So, even the wildest nationalist doesn't state that the tribe, at the time of formation, was Serb/Slavic.

      It's mixed. Setxkbmap (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Even if he claimed them to have been Albanian in origin, doesn’t matter. He is not RS. Alltan (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      I've read the discussions on this page, which is why i don't quote him, and none of the quotes are from his books :) Setxkbmap (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      The excerpts you provided from Rastislav Petrović provide nothing of value in regard to the ethno-linguistic origins of the tribe, he simply comments on the religious character which is entirely irrelevant to the subject matter. Similarly, Soranzo (a primary source) does not comment on the ethnic composition of Kuči. Instead, he discusses a broader area ranging from Montenegro and northern Albania, to the border with Kosova. As has been discussed above, despite the many claims that no attempt for resolution has been made.

      To get back on topic, more sources: Hetzer (1978):

      Umgekehrt haben auch jugoslawische Wissenschaftler die Annahme vertreten daß der im 19. Jh. kopfstärkste Stamm der Montenegriner, die Kuči, erst zur Türkenzeit die ethnische Identität gewechselt habe, d.h. von der albanischen zur serbokroatischen Sprache übergegangen sei.

      Hetzer (1995):

      Ähnliche Probleme gibt es am nördlichen Rand des albanischen Siedlungsgebiets, denn die nach Sufflay 'serbisch-albanische Symbiose' im Mittelalter führte zu gentilen Gemeinschaften, die möglicherweise zweisprachig waren. Die Montenegriner meinen, daß ihr größter 'Stamm', die Kuči, ursprünglich albanisch gewesen sei. Der Name wird mit dem alb. Adjektiv i kuq 'rot' in Zusammenhang gebracht. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      The excerpts you provided from Rastislav Petrović provide nothing of value in regard to the ethno-linguistic origins of the tribe, he simply comments on the religious character which is entirely irrelevant to the subject matter.

      It does matter because conclusion he gives is based off the fact that many of those reports that indicate religion or language were contradicting each other.

      For example, Xhufi Pëllumb says:

      Marian Bolizza nga Kotori, person i mirëinformuar e i besuar i Venecianëve, i përcakton Kuçët e maleve të Bardhës si Shqiptarë të besimit katolik, të prirë nga krerët e tyre, Lalë Drekali e Niko Raiku.

      Por, një burim tjetër i atyre viteve njofton se tashmë Kuçët ishin ndarë në “gjysma ortodoksë e gjysma tjetër katolikë” (la metàs cismatica e l’altra latina).

      First report claims that there is a duke called Lale Drekalov, who was leader of Catholic Albanian Kuči (Chuzzi Albanesi) which had 490 households and 1,500 men-in-arms described as very war-like and courageous.

      While the second report states that the tribe itself is half Orthodox, half Catholic.

      Which is also confirmed by Rastislav, who even claims that the number of orthodox people may be larger, because some reports only reported on Trieshi, which while it is in a territory of Kuči, are a separate tribe.

      Also, the only citation we have about linguistic situation in the tribe during 16th century (Franciscan report) is actually mistranslated in the article itself. The report doesn't state that they will "soon they should be called Slavs, rather than Albanians" but that "they rather call themselves Slavs than Albanians" or something in that sense.

      So the earliest record we have on the language is that the tribe uses illyrian language, which was Slavic language often called.

      Umgekehrt haben auch jugoslawische Wissenschaftler die Annahme vertreten daß der im 19. Jh. kopfstärkste Stamm der Montenegriner, die Kuči, erst zur Türkenzeit die ethnische Identität gewechselt habe, d.h. von der albanischen zur serbokroatischen Sprache übergegangen sei.

      Could be.

      Ähnliche Probleme gibt es am nördlichen Rand des albanischen Siedlungsgebiets, denn die nach Sufflay 'serbisch-albanische Symbiose' im Mittelalter führte zu gentilen Gemeinschaften, die möglicherweise zweisprachig waren. Die Montenegriner meinen, daß ihr größter 'Stamm', die Kuči, ursprünglich albanisch gewesen sei. Der Name wird mit dem alb. Adjektiv i kuq 'rot' in Zusammenhang gebracht

      Author is quoting Sufflay who says nothing like this, as we've seen.

      Sufflay states:

      Old Vlach tribes were quickly assimilated. Amalgamation between Serbs and Albanians continues to this day. Most famous is the example of Kuči tribe, for which in 1610. was said >>Half orthodox, half Albanian<< (questi Dalmatini et Cucci la meta di quali di quali e scismatica e l' altra latina) and in 1614. reports say >>Chuzzi Albanesi del rito Romano<<. Today, that is a Serb tribe.[9](page section screenshot)

      Also, would you be kind and share what book you are citing when you say "Hetzner", as i would like to read it too and have it in my personal archive. I've been looking for Xhufi Pellumb for days, since it's a bit hard searching for articles in Albanian if you don't speak it. Setxkbmap (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      With all due respect, a large amount of this is WP:FORUM and irrelevant as to the ethnic origins of the tribe: the topic of the RfC.

      Per Google Translate the quote from the Franciscan report can be translated as:

      Nonetheless, almost all of them belong to the Servian rite, and of the Illyrian language they can sooner be called Slavs than Albanians.

      Hetzner has been cited in the article, however, for easier access here are the book titles:

      Lehrbuch der vereinheitlichten albanischen Schriftsprache: mit einem deutsch-albanischen Wörterbuch (1978)

      Nominalisierung und verbale Einbettung in Varietäten des Albanischen: eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte der albanischen Schriftsprache am Beispiel erweiterter Verbalprädikate auf areallinguistischem Hintergrund (1995).

      Hetzner is citing Sufflay in a part of his argument, not the entirety. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Per Google Translate the quote from the Franciscan report can be translated as: Nonetheless, almost all of them belong to the Servian rite, and of the Illyrian language they can sooner be called Slavs than Albanians.

      Even with google translate, it's not what the article is stating now: soon they should be called Slavs, rather than Albanians.

      Author still implies that the tribe is closer to Slavs than Albanians, not that the tribe itself is Albanian but soon will be called Slavic.

      Hetzner has been cited in the article

      Really? Even if the book is linguistic/historical dictionary? WP:TERTIARY :)

      But i don't mind. I think it's a decent enough source, i just think he misquoted Sufflay.

      Lehrbuch der vereinheitlichten albanischen Schriftsprache: mit einem deutsch-albanischen Wörterbuch (1978)

      Nominalisierung und verbale Einbettung in Varietäten des Albanischen: eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte der albanischen Schriftsprache am Beispiel erweiterter Verbalprädikate auf areallinguistischem Hintergrund (1995).

      Thanks! I will try to find them and read them. Both of these give some strength Setxkbmap (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Hetzner (1995) does not appear to be a historical or linguistic dictionary. I have also found a quote from Đurđev (1984) in which he writes the following:

      U našoj nauči je opšte primljeno gledište o postanku plemena Kuča po kojem prve začetke plemena treba tražiti u spomenutom katunu Lješa Tuza gdje je upisan Petar Kuč.

      Thus he writes that the consensus in academia was that the Kuči originated from the Albanian katun. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Thus he writes that the consensus in academia was that the Kuči originated from the Albanian katun.

      He argues that people should look for the origin there, he's not stating it as a fact. Again, if that was a fact, it would also be cited. But, Pulaha is cited as saying "possibly leader of the Kuči brotherhood"

      And even he still calls it a brotherhood. By the time tribe has formed, Kuči were only one of many brotherhoods in that region, and especially with later migrations and expansions of the tribe.

      The only thing left from original Kuči could be the name.

      Also, i've noticed that you modified the article. Why is that? Why not just leave it as it was before? There was nothing wrong with it, i had long discussions with you and nobody really seemed to mind, what changed? Setxkbmap (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      This is the translation of the passage I quoted:

      In our teachings, there is a generally accepted point of view about the origin of the Kuči tribe, according to which the first beginnings of the tribe should be sought in the mentioned katun Lješa Tuza, where Petar Kuč was registered.

      As for Pulaha, he doesn't consider it a possibility but rather a fact:

      Nga materiali që paraqitëm del se i pari i bashkësisë së Kuçëve ishte Pjetër Kuçi, kreu i një barku të katunit shqiptar që përmendet në Zetë qysh më 1330.

      Pulaha considers it to be a fact based on the archival material.

      I added RS material, as I mentioned to you in my previous reply. This RfC concerns sources, thus reliable sources have been added. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Well actually the RfC concerns the particualr sources above the poster has mentioned. It has nothing to do with the sources you added. Simply removing them when he himself literally asked and claimed to search for such sources is... weird I guess. Alltan (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      @Lezhjani1444 You should expand the article based on Pulahas view. His view is already backed by Durdev and the source is already in the article, so I see no issue with giving further details on it. Alltan (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      His view is already backed by Durdev and the source is already in the article,

      Actually no. @Lezhjani1444 is in the wrong when talking about Đurđev. While Đurđev does think that origin of the name Kuči lies within the katun of Ljesh Tuzi, he does seem to state same thing many of sources i cited claim.

      By the 1455. tribe region was not yet formed, because in 1455. agreement with Venetia, there were some brotherhoods that later became part of Kuči (Raćesi and Kupusci). - - - Old Kuči community was formed before 1485. Additions to the tribe in 1497. made community even stronger and included more brotherhoods into it

      And even tho Đurđev takes Petar Kuč as defacto ruler of original brotherhood that moved to current region of the tribe, he still believes that it was only one of three brotherhoods that moved from katun of Ljesh Tuzi, while claiming other families were Vlachs.

      So, still mixed. Setxkbmap (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      I have shared passages from Đurđev above, he doesn't argue that just the tribal name was inherited from the brotherhood in the Albanian katun, but that the tribe itself stems from this pastoralist community.

      The quote you have shared is discussing tribal territorialisation and consolidation, the point still stands that the Kuči as a brotherhood or community stemmed from the Albanian katun. Furthermore, the article mentions the incorporation of other brotherhoods, some of which were non-Albanian, during the territorialisation/consolidation of the tribe. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      And as the passage i've provided states, even Đurđev who promotes Petar Kuč theory, believes that tribe was mixed.

      Also, Đurđev states that "only Vlachs were Serbicised" so even by him, when first defters were published at the end of 15th century (keep in mind, we all agree that tribe was not formed until 15th century, as the article states), tribe was mixed. Slavs, Slavicised Vlachs and Albanians. Passage i provided is discussed around page 100. Could you share the page where you found your quote? Setxkbmap (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Durdev explains his school of thought, in which it is accepted that Petar Kuč is the ancestor of the tribe. Pulaha agrees with this view. Pulahas work where he agrees with it is in the article. Durdev is not. So yeah, he can add the details of this view based on Pulaha. Alltan (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      We know that other people moved into Kuçi who were of mixed origin, i.e Zukorilicis ancestors who are unrelated to the main Kuçi line. Those people may be from Kuçi, but they are not the original Kuçi and are not by bloodline Kuçi, besides the fact most of those Slavic names were recorded in 2 villages of newcomers to the nahiya of Kuçi, which also included Koja, Triesh etc. So using defter names as an argument isn’t getting us anywhere at this point. Alltan (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      Pulahas work where he agrees with it is in the article. Durdev is not. So yeah, he can add the details of this view based on Pulaha.

      Nah, now that you told me that Đurđev is a good source, i will definitely use him and cite him :)

      Those people may be from Kuçi, but they are not the original Kuçi and are not by bloodline Kuçi,

      Original brotherhood passed the name, but tribe was formed from many brotherhoods, some of which have nothing to do with Petar Kuč.

      You are mixing Kuč brotherhood and Kuči tribe. Kuči tribe was formed by the end of 15th century, and was mixed, both in origin and anthroponyms those defters.

      Even with Petar Kuč, sources say that tribe was mixed in origin. Setxkbmap (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      "Nah, now that you told me that Đurđev is a good source, i will definitely use him and cite him :)" Never said that, I was talking about Pulaha.

      The rest of what you wrote is WP:OR and WP:FORUM. Alltan (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      Never said that, I was talking about Pulaha.

      Sorry, my bad. Lezhjani quoted Đurđev, not you.

      The rest of what you wrote is WP:OR and WP:FORUM.

      Not really, Đurđev talks about it.

      Rastislav Petrović talks about it.

      Bojka Đukanović talks about mixed origin of tribe.

      Sobolev, which you deemed academic and RS, talks about it.

      Rašović talks about it.

      Actually, most of the sources that talk about 15th century talk about arrivals and mixture of cultures. Setxkbmap (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      I feel like a badly broken recorded explaing the fact that the sources you put forward are poor. They're either not RS, FRINGE, a century old, tertiary and not applicable or simply dont state what you claim. Alltan (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      There's literally a source approved by you which is based on nothing.

      Gras, Marion (1967). Jugoslawien. Glock und Lutz. die Kuči (heute meist serbis. Albaner).

      It has one single mention of the tribe, and whole topic around it lasts 5 words. Those are the quoted 5 words.

      This again does not address the claim of origin. This just shows that people go around hastily searching google books for any mentions of Kuči tribe as Albanians, and just stack the sources for random readers who will come due to RfC.

      So let's not talk about fringe, or RS. Setxkbmap (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      The claim of origin has been addressed, you should read WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:DROPTHESTICK Alltan (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      I am talking about a book that is being cited.

      It's really bad source. Setxkbmap (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      You could open another RfC and see what other editors think. Alltan (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      Your RFC has nothing to do with the sources @Lezhjani1444 added, if you disagree with those sources, open up an RfC for them instead or just explain what is wrong with them. Alltan (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      Why didn't you open RfC when you disagreed with Bojka? Setxkbmap (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      Because Bojka is not in the article and I am not the one trying to add them. Alltan (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      Hetzner Armin was also not in the article, and you are not the one trying to add him.

      Yet, you keep it in. Why is is different to Bojka? Setxkbmap (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      Because he is not Tertiary or Fringe or 100 years old or part of Serbian nationalist historiography or NOTRS.

      And also because you ASKED for a source on the Kuci being of Albanian origin (ignoring the 8 already there) and it felt it very kind of Lezhjani to fulfil your wish. Alltan (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      Because he is not Tertiary or Fringe or 100 years old or part of Serbian nationalist historiography or NOTRS.

      There are other 100 years old sources, and i never minded Albanian sources. I can't understand why you are so fixated and angry at Serbs. I also provided sources that are not tertiary. Like Petrović, Rašović, Sobolev, and Bojka as a tertiary source can be used too according to rules.

      And also because you ASKED for a source on the Kuci being of Albanian origin (ignoring the 8 already there) and it felt it very kind of Lezhjani to fulfil your wish.

      I asked days ago, nobody cared. I started dispute resolution, nobody cared (you were invited, it's on your talk page :) ), i talked to admins, they said that they agree that citations are needed and that i should create RfC.

      Now, i've created a RfC, and i am waiting for people to discuss this. I am not adding anything into the article, and i expect others not to do so either.

      Some of the sources he provided were disproven here in the talk page, as they are quoting other editors that never said anything source provided claim, as we've seen. Setxkbmap (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      I am not angry at anything and I don't have to be. My emotions do not matter on what RS have said, neither do yours. You can fall in love with me for all I care, but the article needs good reliable sources, unpolluted by nationalist historiography. Please keep your personal struggles to yourself or at least not on this article. Alltan (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      Yes, scary nationalists promoting ideas of ethnic heterogeneous communities.

      But, WP:FORUM Setxkbmap (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      What? xD Alltan (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Yeesh. One important function of an RfC, as I understand it, is to get more eyes on the problem; in particular, those of nonspecialist editors not directly involved in the dispute. I suggest the disputants figure out how the essential point of contention can be conveyed to the intelligent layperson in a form that that they (the disputants) can agree on, such that the layperson can understand what the problem is. Stop trying to win the argument for a minute and work together in good faith to explain to us what the argument is. What can you agree on? Regulov (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's kinda hard to agree when you are picky about what you cite.

  For example, article currently cite Matthew Curtis, Slavic-Albanian Language Contact, Convergence, and Coexistence

  On the other hand, there are some areas, particularly in Montenegro, where Albanian-speaking populations have shifted to Slavic-speaking ones, such as the tribes of Piperi and Kuči

  while in that same work Curtis will also state bilingual and mixed society

  it is known that certain clans (e.g. Piperi and Kuči) have switched from having a mixed composition of Albanian and Slavic speakers to being only Slavic

  Here's what we 100% agree on, there's been a process of Slavicisation. Even i agree with Curtis that there was a shift from Albanian speaking population to Slavic speaking population. What we don't agre, and neither does Curtis it seems, is that tribe was monolingual society, ever.

  The oldest document on tribe population (defters) show mixed population

  The oldest language report (Franciscan) shows illyric language, which was the name for serbo-croatian and it's variations up until 19th century.

  So we do agree that there was process of slavicisation, and i have no problems with that. What we don't agree on is whether that process happened to fully Albanian population, or mixed population that exchanged cultures and language. Setxkbmap (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support. This article has been flawed for many years, to the point that I personally stopped working on it, despite having a certain interest and good knowledge of the subject of Montenegrin tribes in general and the Kuči in particular. Many things are wrong with this article, starting with how the Kuči are presented right from the lead, which does not match the content of the article. Since the 17th century, the Kuči have essentially been a Slavic and Eastern Orthodox tribe, where the Albanian Catholic element, mentioned in 1610 as a separate clan, the Drekalovići, has long been assimilated into the others, in other words, it has itself become Slavic and Orthodox. Of this Catholic Albanian substratum, which was partial anyway, almost nothing remains today, except for the inhabitants of the village of Koći (Koja) and part of those in Fundina. Currently, and for about 200 years now, the Kuči have been a tribe with a strong sense of Panserbianism, a trait they share with their neighbours, the Vasojevići. This characteristic has not been contradicted since then, and although the villages that make up the territory of the Kuči tribe have been depopulating for about thirty years, they are not empty, and the disintegration of Yugoslavia has contributed to the revival of a strong sense of tribal belonging among the Kuči. As such, the Kuči overwhelmingly rejected Montenegro's independence and have consistently voted for pro-Serbian parties, in other words, parties advocating closer ties with Serbia. Yet none of this, which is an important feature of the Kuči's identity, is reflected at all in the lead. And this is a problem because the lead serves as an introduction for a newcomer to the subject. Relying on MOS:LEAD, the article should begin with: the Kuči are a historical tribe of Montenegro, living in a region of the same name located within the area of the Brda. Mentioning an Albanian origin right from the start can only confuse an uninformed reader: "I came to learn more about a Slavic tribe in Montenegro that I was told is very Serbophile. But not only does the introduction not mention this strong Serbian identity of the Kuči, but it also speaks first of an Albanian origin. This is confusing. Conclusion, Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information."

The second main problem lies precisely in this supposedly Albanian origin of the tribe. First of all, assuming it is proven, which is not certain at all, it does not need to be brought up right away because it does not explain what the identity of the Kuči has been for centuries. Now, as many people here express a lot of concern about the origin of the tribe, it is established that the Kuči were mentioned for the first time as a community in 1455, but we have no indication of their ethnic composition at that time. The whole part of the article that mentions the Venetian register of 1416 is based only on a primary source. So this falls within WP:OR and should be entirely deleted, because at no point does the translator of the source in question, the Albanian historian Injac Zamputi, mention any connection between the Kuči tribe and the individuals with the surname Kuchi in the Venetian source. When the Kuči are mentioned in 1485, their anthroponymy is mixed, both Slavic and Albanian. It is predominantly Albanian, yes, but the villages mentioned in this defter are mostly villages that are now located within the tribal territory of the Albanian tribe of the Triepshi. This strong mix of names, especially in 1497, has made most Serbian historians and onomasticians very cautious about the origin of the Kuči. Yet Serbian and Montenegrin scholars are the ones who have studied this tribe the most: however, except for Djurdjev, none of them are cited in this article regarding the origins of the tribe. This is a major gap, as Yugoslav historiography in the post-WWII period has addressed this issue several times. The English sources used, while they validate a link between the Kuči and the Albanians, are by no means from specialists on the subject: neither Calic, Malcolm, nor Elsie write extensively about the Kuči. Their writings used in the article are related to other subjects. Malcolm, known for his pro-Albanian bias, therefore writes Kuçi using the Albanian spelling and considers them to be Albanian. Calic simply mentions the Kuči in passing, among tribes she thinks are Albanian, as a non-specialist on this subject. She does not talk at all about the origin of the tribe, and her text, recently introduced as a reference, must clearly be removed. Finally, Elsie's book, which concerns strictly Albanian tribes, only briefly mentions the Kuči, simply sharing the widely held opinion in Albanian historiography that they are descendants of Slavicized Albanians. And for the sake of WP:NPOV, why should we accept Xhufi's conclusion based on an obscure Franciscan report that he analyzes with his strong nationalist bias, and not accept recent sources from a reputable scholar like Djukanovic, who explicitly states that the Kuči are of mixed origin? And honestly, the entire paragraph in the lead regarding the "Slavicization processes" does smell a lot and on top of that, it is not even sourced.

The last major issue (there are others, but I will not mention them all here) is that the Kuči are mentioned as being simultaneously Serbs, Montenegrins, Albanians, and Bosniaks, citing the (unsourced) example of Muamer Zukorlić. However, there are descendants of the Kuči everywhere, not just in the Sandžak but throughout Serbia, possibly even in Bosnia and Croatia, since it is established that many families from the Herzegovinian and Montenegrin clans migrated to these regions during the Ottoman period. But does this mean that these people are Kuči? Of course not. The sense of tribal affiliation is closely linked to the territory: a member of the Kuči is someone born in the territory of the Kuči to a Kuči family. Possibly, someone whose parents or grandparents were born there is considered related to the Kuči. After a few generations, it no longer makes sense, and these supposed Kuči Bosniaks from Sandžak have not lived in the Kuči territory for generations: they are no longer considered members. Because tribes in Montenegro are characterized both by a strong sense of sharing a common ancestor and by a strong regional attachment. Claiming Bosniaks or Serbs as Kuči but living outside the Kuči territory makes absolutely no sense.

Krisitor (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

This article has been flawed for many years, to the point that I personally stopped working on it, despite having a certain interest and good knowledge of the subject of Montenegrin tribes in general and the Kuči in particular. How knowledgeable you personally claim to be is not important to the article.

Many things are wrong with this article, starting with how the Kuči are presented right from the lead, which does not match the content of the article. Since the 17th century, the Kuči have essentially been a Slavic and Eastern Orthodox tribe, where the Albanian Catholic element, mentioned in 1610 as a separate clan, the Drekalovići, has long been assimilated into the others, in other words, it has itself become Slavic and Orthodox. Of this Catholic Albanian substratum, which was partial anyway, almost nothing remains today, except for the inhabitants of the village of Koći (Koja) and part of those in Fundina. Wrong, the Drekalovici were one of the 2 great brotherhoods of Kuçi at that point, but the Albanian element predates the 17th century assimilation of Kuçi into Slavdom. This is mentioned in the article, the defters of 1417 and 1485 being clear examples of Albanian anthroponyms largely predominating Slavic ones, even if you take into account the defter wasn't about the tribe but the nahiyah of Kuçi, which Serbian historiography has made a tendency to conflate to put forward your very same argument above (see article for more, it's there). And Koja is a different tribe, we don't have to act like they are the Albanian component of Kuçi as there are plenty of Albanians who descend from Drekalovici or Starokuci.

Currently, and for about 200 years now, the Kuči have been a tribe with a strong sense of Panserbianism, a trait they share with their neighbours, the Vasojevići. This characteristic has not been contradicted since then, and although the villages that make up the territory of the Kuči tribe have been depopulating for about thirty years, they are not empty, and the disintegration of Yugoslavia has contributed to the revival of a strong sense of tribal belonging among the Kuči. As such, the Kuči overwhelmingly rejected Montenegro's independence and have consistently voted for pro-Serbian parties, in other words, parties advocating closer ties with Serbia. Yet none of this, which is an important feature of the Kuči's identity, is reflected at all in the lead. Relying on MOS:LEAD, the article should begin with: the Kuči are a historical tribe of Montenegro, living in a region of the same name located within the area of the Brda. Mentioning an Albanian origin right from the start can only confuse an uninformed reader: "I came to learn more about a Slavic tribe in Montenegro that I was told is very Serbophile. But not only does the introduction not mention this strong Serbian identity of the Kuči, but it also speaks first of an Albanian origin. This is confusing. Conclusion, Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information."

OK first of all why do I have to keep reminding people that this is not a WP:FORUM? You can not mind read what other editors think, the lead is there for people to get factual information on the tribe. We start with their origin, which is that they were an Albanian tribe which slowly became bilingual and Slavicised almost entirely except Fundina. Questions regarding their politics and how much they love Serbia and want to be called Serbs 24/7 have absolutely nothing to do with this RfC. Are you saying we should falsely portray a mixed origin which goes against modern non-Serb historiography because the people there today like Serbia so much? Cause mentioning their politics today and in the 19th centuries as a reference to their origin is... wrong.

The second main problem lies precisely in this supposedly Albanian origin of the tribe. First of all, assuming it is proven, which is not certain at all, it does not need to be brought up right away because it does not explain what the identity of the Kuči has been for centuries. Now, as many people here express a lot of concern about the origin of the tribe, it is established that the Kuči were mentioned for the first time as a community in 1455, but we have no indication of their ethnic composition at that time. The whole part of the article that mentions the Venetian register of 1416 is based only on a primary source. So this falls within WP:OR and should be entirely deleted, because at no point does the translator of the source in question, the Albanian historian Injac Zamputi, mention any connection between the Kuči tribe and the individuals with the surname Kuchi in the Venetian source. When the Kuči are mentioned in 1485, their anthroponymy is mixed, both Slavic and Albanian. It is predominantly Albanian, yes, but the villages mentioned in this defter are mostly villages that are now located within the tribal territory of the Albanian tribe of the Triepshi. This strong mix of names, especially in 1497, has made most Serbian historians and onomasticians very cautious about the origin of the Kuči. Yet Serbian and Montenegrin scholars are the ones who have studied this tribe the most: however, except for Djurdjev, none of them are cited in this article regarding the origins of the tribe. This is a major gap, as Yugoslav historiography in the post-WWII period has addressed this issue several times. Yet again, MOSLEAD tells us we can and should summarize the article in the lead. There is nothing wrong with that. If you find support to include that Kuçi today likes Serbia a lot and want to keep that in the lead that is unrelated to this article. On the 1416 defter, that is actually a good point, I will add a secondary source confirming the 1416 defter and the Kuçi village there.

The English sources used, while they validate a link between the Kuči and the Albanians, are by no means from specialists on the subject: neither Calic, Malcolm, nor Elsie write extensively about the Kuči. Their writings used in the article are related to other subjects. Malcolm, known for his pro-Albanian bias, therefore writes Kuçi using the Albanian spelling and considers them to be Albanian. Calic simply mentions the Kuči in passing, among tribes she thinks are Albanian, as a non-specialist on this subject. She does not talk at all about the origin of the tribe, and her text, recently introduced as a reference, must clearly be removed. Finally, Elsie's book, which concerns strictly Albanian tribes, only briefly mentions the Kuči, simply sharing the widely held opinion in Albanian historiography that they are descendants of Slavicized Albanians. And for the sake of WP:NPOV, why should we accept Xhufi's conclusion based on an obscure Franciscan report that he analyzes with his strong nationalist bias, and not accept recent sources from a reputable scholar like Djukanovic, who explicitly states that the Kuči are of mixed origin? And honestly, the entire paragraph in the lead regarding the "Slavicization processes" does smell a lot and on top of that, it is not even sourced. They do not need to be specialists, not everyone is a specialist on Kuçi, but they show the modern consensus regarding their origin and are included in a list of many many other people who have studied it. Malcolm and Elsies contributions to Albanology are indispensable, but that doesn't make them hate pro Albanian. Even an Albanian like Xhufi, who is RS, is an incredible source of information because of his usage of primary sources. Why are there no primary sources mentioning an Albanisation of the tribe? Because yeah, the part about slavicisation is sourced, you just gotta actually look at the sources.

The last major issue (there are others, but I will not mention them all here) is that the Kuči are mentioned as being simultaneously Serbs, Montenegrins, Albanians, and Bosniaks, citing the (unsourced) example of Muamer Zukorlić. However, there are descendants of the Kuči everywhere, not just in the Sandžak but throughout Serbia, possibly even in Bosnia and Croatia, since it is established that many families from the Herzegovinian and Montenegrin clans migrated to these regions during the Ottoman period. But does this mean that these people are Kuči? Of course not. The sense of tribal affiliation is closely linked to the territory: a member of the Kuči is someone born in the territory of the Kuči to a Kuči family. Possibly, someone whose parents or grandparents were born there is considered related to the Kuči. After a few generations, it no longer makes sense, and these supposed Kuči Bosniaks from Sandžak have not lived in the Kuči territory for generations: they are no longer considered members. Because tribes in Montenegro are characterized both by a strong sense of sharing a common ancestor and by a strong regional attachment. Claiming Bosniaks or Serbs as Kuči but living outside the Kuči territory makes absolutely no sense. Forum talk aside, the Kuçi do not exist as a tribe. There is no tribal territory where you need to meet a tribal leader or village elder and people generally no longer live in semi pastoral livestyles. All Kuçi today are tribe members because they trace their origins to Kuçi or to people who are Kuçi themselves. This includes Bosniaks and Albanians, because those people have family genealogies and nobody can discredit them and tell them they are not from Kuçi.

Are they really part of the tribe patrilinealy? Not if they have Slavic haplogroups, but that is WP:OR territory, for now at least. My point is yet again that this has nothing to do with the RfC. Alltan (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Great source for Kuci village in Albania.

Too bad that "defter" has nothing to do with tribe that formed in the current area of Trieshi, between 1455. and 1485., and was formed of 8 towns and multiple brotherhoods. It's about Nenad's family and his two sons who are believed to be the carrier of the name of the tribe, as per oral tradition one of Nenads sons, Grca, moved to current tribe of Kuci and brought the name with him. Setxkbmap (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

According to RS the village in the 1416-17 cadaster is the home of the Kuçi prior to their moving into the Brda. There are many more Kuçi villages in Albania, including one east of Vlore mentioned in 1421, but I simply added the one about the Kuçi we are specifically talking about in this article. Personal opinions are not important when we have sourcing, thankfully. Alltan (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

According to RS, there is a possibility. It's a guess, most probable thing, but nothing really connects those two. There's no proof of that migration.

According to RS, even if you take that theory as a fact, Nenad and his descendents were from village of Kuc and they moved into the region of Trieshi. In 1455. there is a Kuci village in that region, but it's not yet tribe as we can see, but only 1 settlement based on Zetski Zbor agreement. There are two other settlements that are mentioned as a separate entities there, that later together with Kuci formed a tribe, those were Lazorci and Kupusci.

It's not a personal opinion, sorry. It's your personal opinion that you can take a possible origin of a name as a factual claim for ethnic origin of a tribe. Setxkbmap (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

We stick by what RS says, whether you or I consider that WP:TRUTH is not relevant. Alltan (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Great, we should also include Karl Kaser as a source.

he states:

When his extensive catun was split up, the summer settlements were probably the first to separate. It seems that the process of territorialization of the split-off communities was completed in 1455. The Mataguži community, which had still existed at the beginning of the 15th century, later disappeared. The Hoti community had already united some katunas at the beginning of the 15th century. In 1485, 8 villages and 134 houses were counted in the united katunas. The immediate ancestor of the Kuči was supposed to have been a Grča Nenadin. The originally not very extensive Katun expanded rapidly due to Serbian settlers in the 15th and 16th centuries. The new settlers (including the Dobroäani, tigomani, Deljani, Bulatoviei, Miloviei etc.) quickly integrated and also adopted the name of Kuči. In 1485, the Kuči were 8 villages with 253 houses; in 1497, there were already 150 more houses, and the 8 villages had grown into 9 katunas and 2 villages

He says that supposed ancestor of Kuci is Grca. He also claims that the katun expanded rapidly in 15th century due to influx of Serbian settlers. Which is when tribe was formed which is conclusion that is already in the article now.

Glad you agree. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

What do I agree with excuse me? The above has nothing to do with the RfC. Alltan (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

It does. RfC is about origin of the tribe, and whether or not it should be changed from the current status, and this is one of the sources that confirms mixed origin of the tribe during the formation period in the later part of the 15th century. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

First of all the source doesn't do that, secondly that is not how an RfC works as already explained to you. Nowhere does Kasser mention a mixed origin. Alltan (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

First of all the source doesn't do that

Sorry, but he is describing a period of time when tribe was formed, and you state that he is not talking about origin? While we have sources currently in the article that when cited talk nothing about origin, or that period at all?

For example, Bernd J. Fischer states:

he tribe of Kuçi/Kuči, for example, was divided into three branches, Catholic, Muslim and Orthodox, and into two languages (Albanian and Slavic), but their members kept the memory of a common ancestry.

How does this address the claim of origin? Author states nothing of origin, he could state Kuci are Greek and it would still be valid.

So yeah, Karl addresses the claim better than all of the citations we have now Setxkbmap (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

He literally agrees with Pulaha as to them being an Albanin katun. Serbs coming in doesn't change the fact it was originally... Albanian. Alltan (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The immediate ancestor of the Kuči was supposed to have been a Grča Nenadin.

Supposed. Serbs coming actually does change the fact, because tribe was not formed until end of 15th century. Tribe was formed by multiple brotherhoods, as other sources confirm even in the article, and tribe was mixed as Pulaha saw in defters. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR Pulahas defters are about the Kuçi nahija first of all, and Slavic names were used all over Albania by both Orthodox and even Catholics in some cases. You need to find sources and stop treating wikipedia as a forum. Alltan (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not WP:OR, we have defter data, we have Pulaha's info, and we have citation from Pulaha:

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

He also talks about influx of Pavlovici and Banjovici, who he claims are Slavs and Orthodox, they also moved to the tribe in the period of formation. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Pulaha considers the tribe to have been Albanian during formation before and after it. So you are either attempting to falsify sources or just haven't read Pulaha. Your personal opinion on the defter names is your personal opinion.

About that, you need to bear in mind not to confuse the Kuci tribe with the Nahiyah of Kuci, the Pavlovici and Banjovici being Slavic is a possibility but wether or not they contributed to the formation of the tribe is not mentioned by Kaser. Alltan (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

That source is there to show to users that Kuçi is just as valid as Kuči, and that according to oral tradition they originate from one tribe. Alltan (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

NVM the fact Kaser considers Kuci to have been originally an Albanian katun :

genau das selbe geschah mit den albanischen katunen der Bushati...Kuçi.

from Hirten, Kämpfer, Stammeshelden

Ursprünge und Gegenwart des balkanischen Patriarchats page 147.

Karl Kaser · 1992 Alltan (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, i literally said that. Read the quote i posted

The immediate ancestor of the Kuči was supposed to have been a Grča Nenadin.

He does think that the supposed ancestor comes from Albanian katun. And then tribe was formed with expansion and influx of Serbian settlers. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

No, that is your original research, nowhere have you provided such a claim where he mentions the formation of the tribe as being because of Serbs coming in. The brotherhood already existed long before, so did the Katun, both being originally Albanian according to the sources. Alltan (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

No, that is your original research, nowhere have you provided such a claim where he mentions the formation of the tribe as being because of Serbs coming in.

I didn't claim tribe formed because of Serbs coming in, i claimed that the formation of the tribe happened while the influx of other brotherhoods was happening. Time of tribe creation is in the article itself, and other sources confirm it. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not care what you claim, you need to find sources and stop treating this talk page like a WP:FORUM Alltan (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I will check sources with RS noticeboard, and if they confirm they are OK i will implement them into the article. Thanks for the discussion Setxkbmap (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

You will need consensus first. I can find RS talking about Moracani and Piva as Albanian, they could be RS, but WP:FRINGE is also a thing. You can not give undue weight to a theory just because it is RS. FYI Alltan (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, give me a process that i need to follow.

There was no consensus for additions of the sources that were added in the last two days, but it's still up. So i assumed that if we tick all the boxes, we can add RS.

Give me the process i need to go through and opinions i need to get so that i could add sources that explain origin of the tribe and address the claim directly. Setxkbmap (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose all arbitrary introduction of non-RS sources as proposed by Setxbmap, but this isn't an RfC at this point as an RfC can't decide what is RS and what isn't. They need to have a clear proposal, not a "let's rewrite the article" support/oppose article. Anyone can add/remove anything and their edits will either get accepted or rejected by others, but there's no RfC which can end with any agreement to allow someone to change an entire article without any discussion about specific points.Alltan (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Proposal is: "Let's import other sources and clean the ones that have nothing to do with what is claimed, as we've seen by actually reading the book"

  It's pretty valid. If you think that i need to check whether something is RS, i will try those noticeboards too. Thanks for suggestion Setxkbmap (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a malformed RfC which can't be closed with any actionable result because there is no valid proposal to support or oppose. It can get a 100 support or a 100 oppose and it'll still never be closed because there is nothing concrete to support or oppose.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a malformed RfC

I actually checked whether my RfC is ok, and got confirmation that it is.

Sorry, you will just have to accept that people expect outside opinions on whether the tribe that was recorded as mixed in 15th century, was part of orthodox faith in 1455, spoke Slavic language for at least 5 centuries (Franciscian report), should be called of mixed origin, or Albanian, Vlach, Serb origin. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)