Jump to content

Talk:Voisava Kastrioti

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reposh[edit]

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

Have you checked the quote (Vukanović 1971) that was given there? And the article does not say explicitly, it says in the vicinity of the Tower. AlexBachmann (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit say Reposh retired at the Albanian tower. Neither of the source by Vukanović or the citation you recently added says Reposh retired at the Albanian Tower. Both of the them says he retired at Hilander. --Azor (talk). 18:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. This version should be acceptable to both of us [1]. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You write "the family" (for some reason including Voisava and her children?), but the source actually says: Ivan was devoutly Orthodox, having donated a tower in the Serbian monastery. His son Reposh died at Hilandar as an Orthodox monk. As far as I can see, the only content about Voisava from the source is an explanation of her roots; "Ivan had married a Serbian noblewoman, likely from the Brankovic dynasty..". The donation to Hilandar isn't explained to have anything to do with Voisava (which this biography-related article is about) nor any of her children. While I understand you wish to expand this article, but try to do so without original research and going off topic. Sometimes, simple is better. --Azor (talk). 21:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should read Vukanović as well as other sources on this particular matter. The adelphates and the like purchased by Voisava’s husband and her sons resulted in the establishment of the Albanian Tower. You wrote about Reposh that he died in the Serbian Orthodox Hilandar Monastery, which is true, but he retired at the Albanian Tower (where the adelphates were purchased) and was buried in its vicinity. This context should be included if you want to mention what he did with his life and where he died. Botushali (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Azor's campaign of removing "Albanian" everywhere, even here, isn't going to end well. For some reason, he instantly used "š" instead of "sh" when referring to Reposh in the heading. I wonder why. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Repoš is used by the source of Vukanović. The same source you hinted me to read. --Azor (talk). 22:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem lies in persistent edits driven by original research. If there are additional sources providing more detailed information on Repoš/Reposh or Voisava's involvement in the Albanian tower, reference those instead. --Azor (talk). 22:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no OR, read Vukanović, these adelphates were purchased and only Reposh retired to them. Botushali (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are yet to present a citation saying Reposh retired or was buried at the Albanian tower. The current sources only say he retired at Hilandar and was buried in King Milutin's narthex. --Azor (talk). 00:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Azor, I’d direct you towards reading WP:BLUESKY. If Reposh and his family purchased adelphates at Hilandar for possible future use, and then Reposh would later retire to said monastery, where do you think he retired to? Obviously he retired to his adelphate in the Albanian Tower, how else would he have been allowed to remain at Hilandar? You purchase things like adelphates for a reason. I am pretty certain Vukanović alludes to it, but I currently cannot double-check or find other sources. Botushali (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source presented by AlexBachmann says Reposh was buried in the King Milutin's narthex. If this topic was a case of "blue sky", shouldn't we have expected Reposh to be buried at the Albanian tower? --Azor (talk). 08:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about burying, I am talking about retiring. Adelphates are not tombs… Botushali (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The statement The name was in use among Albanian nobility, Karl Thopia and Gjergj Arianiti both had daughters named Voisava and does not refer to a particular ethnic origin is not WP:UNDUE. It is explicitly discussed by the source in connection to the subject of the article. If Azor asks for this statement to be removed, then there is no reason why the statement The name Voisava is a feminine rendition of the Slavic name Vojislav from voj (war, struggle) and slava (fame, glory) won't be removed because unlike the first one, the sentence about the name's etymology is not discussed in bibliography in relation to this subject. It can be removed because it is just a wiktionary entry.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is WP:UNDUE. The name of Voisava is related to, exactly, Voisava (in which the etymology is explained in the source by Vukanović). The correlation between Slavic names within the Albanian nobility and the actual ethnicity of individuals is irrelevant to this biography. If so, we might as well further elaborate that the mother of Voisava Thopia was Vojislava Balsic from a South Slavic dynasty, hence giving Voisava Thopia a South Slavic heritage. So perhaps there is a correlation between Slavic names among Albanian nobility and Slavic ethnicity after all? Do you find this further elaboration fit for this article? --Azor (talk). 13:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What does the etymology have to do with her early life? Creating a section with "Name" and including both quotes, namely the etymology and the quote that has been restored by Maleschreiber would be better for all. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how elaborating on a new section "Name" about the correlation between Slavic names within the Albanian nobility and the actual heritage of individuals is improving this article. This is a biography-related article and Vukanović speak of her name's etymology, yet don't use it to support any origin claim. The only time in this entire article that her name is being connected to the topic of origins is, in fact, in the statement @Maleschreiber brought back. This way, it doesn't elaborate on any previous topic - it only forces the need of further (irrelevant) elaboration. Such discussion of correlation could be taken to other articles, like for example Vojislava. --Azor (talk). 20:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The line about Albanian nobility's use of the name that follows the name's etymology should not be separated for the sake of pushing a certain viewpoint without the other to counter it, particularly when the etymology does not even discuss Voisava. They go hand-in-hand and are directly relevant to each other. Botushali (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Omari's source is, in fact, only the author's opinion on a quite complex ethnohistorical topic. Even by studying Voisava Thopia family tree, you would find clear aspects of Slavic heritage. Moreover, I suppose you would also support the implementation of sources to further discuss the correlation between Slavic names among Albanian nobility and Slavic ethnicity on this biography-related article? Let Maleschreiber comment on this, I want to hear from the one who actually reverted me to make sure we are on the same page. --Azor (talk). 08:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maleschreiber Precede to answer to the concerns you raised when you reverted and added back that statement. You jump to revert at other articles, yet your involvement in the talkpages is extremely limited. Let me remind you that avoiding to communicate is stonewalling. --Azor (talk). 09:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @AzorzaI Omari's work is a doctoral thesis from 2014, and as stated in WP:SCHOLARSHIP you are perfectly right to take it with caution:
    Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources.[...] Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
    In this particular case, Omari's 10-year-old thesis has not been widely cited, nor has it had any significant impact on the literature, so great care should be taken when using it. In particular, all statements referring to it should explicitly mention Omari's name and the fact that they are derived from his doctoral work. Krisitor (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omari's work reports archival data and the statement about Voisava's name refers to such data. The name Voisava itself was not uncommon in the medieval Albanian feudal class and it has no ethnic connotation among Albanians. It's a non-controversial observation. The statement falls under the scope of the article per WP:TOPIC. If some editors bring up the same issue over and over again, other editors who have already replied to them will not respond every time to voice their opposition to their edits. Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM where the last comment gets to be imposed as the consensus version.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted ShockedSkater's latest edit per WP:AGEMATTERS. Avoid citing 100+ year old sources, especially since there are more than enough modern sources on this topic out there. --Azor (talk). 10:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed Omari's findings in the Dubrovnik archives at the end of the Origin section, as it is a much more appropriate place. And besides, its previous location was breaking the flow of the introduction section. The other editor who always removes Omari's name at the beginning of the sentence has no valid arguments for doing so. Krisitor (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think documents that give another name to Vojsava, are important and should be left in the lead. Maybe she took monastic vows thus changing the name. ShockedSkater (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Most Scholars?[edit]

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

Are you changing 'most' to 'many' because you have a source that specifically uses 'many'? --Azor (talk). 13:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AzorzaI Where is the source where it states that "Most scholars" I'm very confused where you got that information from. As well as why are you switching the question up on Botushali when he asked you the question? Arberian2444 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current version has been stable for a year and was built through comprehensive discussions (4/10/23) among editors, considering a variety of sources rather than any single one. The version you support has not been previously discussed or substantiated by any specific source, as far as I can tell, which is why I asked. --Azor (talk). 18:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was not my question or my concern. If you cannot provide a source which supports the wording of “most scholars”, then it needs to be changed. Just because a version that has an error has been long-standing, doesn’t mean it can’t be altered. You know very well that “stable version” is not a valid reason for RV’s, and I’m pretty certain an admin has warned you of that in the past. If you cannot provide a source that supports the current wording, I will be changing it again. Botushali (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you changing 'most' to 'many' because you have a source that specifically uses 'many'? - ok, no worries, we can change it to “some scholars” since there is no source that says “most” or “many”. Meanwhile, the article has some sources listed which support a Slavic origin, although not enough to say “most” or “many”. Botushali (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wording "most" is not an unsupported claim because it does not fall under the category of "phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint". In this article, all available sources, both early and modern, are presented to the readers. This ensures that the reader has the opportunity to assess the sources of the different viewpoints presented. Therefore, the wording "most" does not require an additional source. Definition of most: the biggest number or amount of; more than anything or anyone else. In previous discussions, editors examined various sources and concluded that the majority supported a South Slavic origin. --Azor (talk). 09:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AzorzaI: that's not how Wikipedia works. The word most can be used only if a reliable source uses it as per WP:SUBSTANTIATE: "Most people think" is acceptable only when supported by at least one published survey. I have experienced several content disputes about such cases, and if a source does not support that specific strong wording, then it cannot be used. In this case the content can be neutrally reworded without original research as a number of scholars. – Βατο (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Βατο Thank you for your input. However, you are addressing a different guideline. WP:SUBSTANTIATE deals with opinions. The word 'most' is not an opinion but a factual summary of the article's content, supported by the positions of the sources cited in the article, as extensively debated in prior discussions covering each source in the article. If there were additional updated sources to support the Muzaka origin, it would indeed challenge the use of 'most.' However, as it stands, 'most' accurately reflects the majority of the sources. The correct guideline is MOS:WEASEL which provides no indication that 'most' is a weasel word.
In essence, the requirement for published surveys applies to discussions of opinions, not to the wording used to summarize the article for readers. For instance, if you have four apples - three red and one green - it is not an opinion to state that the majority of the apples are red. There would be no need for a published survey to support this factual statement. However, claiming that all apples in every household are mostly red could be an opinion requiring such survey-based support. To clarify this distinction, I have expanded the wording to prevent confusion among readers. --Azor (talk). 12:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In all my time on Wikipedia, I have never once seen an article say “most scholars referenced on this article support x”. This article is not the topic of discussion, whereas Voisava is. I count four editors who do not support the way it was worded, and I too endorse Bato’s neutral wording of “a number of scholars”. Botushali (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting me on the basis of "4v1" logic is not how Wikipedia works. --Azor (talk). 11:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted you because you don’t have a source that says “most scholars”. If you wish to continue edit-warring against multiple editors who have the same issue with your unsourced personal preferences regarding word choice, feel free to do so. Botushali (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voisava_Kastrioti&oldid=1230156542"