Talk:Balšić noble family/Archive 1

The Balšić clearly come from a French dynasty, the Baux
I have a book from the author François Lenormant which is the biggest proof of this. Lenormant explains in it how a member of a French dynasty from the south of France came to Albania during the Middle Age, how his descendants became slavicized and came to power after the death of the Serbian ruler Stefan Dusan. The book is called 'Deux dynasties françaises chez les Slaves méridionaux aux quatorzième et douzième siècles', François Lenormant, 1861. A translation of this somewhat long title could be 'Two french dynasties within the Southern Slavs during the fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries' (I'm really sorry for my English). I could develop the article on the House of Balsic using the material provided by this book, unfortunately my English is too bad to do that. But I will eventually do it for the French article (which doesn't exist yet). So, Balša/Balsha is absolutely not of Balkan origin, neither Serbian nor Albanian. Oh, and Balša III built a coastal residence near Herceg-Novi during the fifteenth century. The place became known as Baošići and it's now a small Montenegrin village bearing the same old name. Knowing that the French surname "Baux" was pronounced "bao" and considering Lenormant's work, I think we don't need to look further. Knowledge can be lost, all the false theories surrounding the origin of the name Balšić/Balshaj considering that a French historian knew its real origin 150 years before is a clear evidence of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.60.25 (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahm actually, no. We know that. There were countless theories on the Balsics' origin, found in the French, Provencal, Italian and other dynasties - all just guessings. However, we're certain that they're not of Serbian origin, nor Albanian. The modern most accepted school (and most logical) is that they're of Vlach origin, although this comes with reserve as well. --PaxEquilibrium 11:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So you don't know anything about the Balšić's origin, particulary if you say they are of Vlach origin without any proof of that and especially because you are saying that there are countless theories about their French/Provencal/Italian origin. Why? Because the only source for these countless theories is Lenormant's work, which was used by many scholars after him, often without referring to him. The book I mentioned is clearly documented about the relations between the Balšić and the Baux. Lenormant used a lot, I mean A LOT of material to write his book. In fact, the Baux where a French family from Provence. They moved to the Italian territories dominated by the Anjou, who where also a French family. The Anjou had a Kingdom in Albania at that time (during the 13th century). Many French noblemen settled there too, and Bertrand de Baux was one of them. From him came all the Balšić, but some time later so the link between Bertrand de Baux and his descendants was lost. However the Balšić used primarily the same coat of arms as the Baux, which was a star before it became a wolf. There are so many other informations in this book... The problem is that it was never translated in English neither in Serbian nor Albanian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.60.25 (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it was, in Serbo-Croat. I've read it and numerous other theories on the Balsics' origins. Their totally unknown origin made all kinds of historians to search at the Western nobility their origin, the one you mentioned isn't the only one. But this is all that which it is - guessing, because their origin is unknown. I don't understand why you mention Albanian so much?
 * Even according to a Montenegrin Novak Adzic (here) "Najnovija naučna istraživanja govore da porijeklo Balšića jeste od slaviziranih Vlaha (Iliro - Romana)" or in English: "Most recent scientific research tells that the origin of the Balsics is of slavicized Vlachs (Illyro - Romans)". The same thing is claimed by Serbian historian Andrija Veselinovic in his book on Serb dynasties. The "History of the Serb People" encyclopedia, they're most probably of Vlach origin. The Historical lexicon of Montenegro writes about one of the many (unproven) theories of the family's origin - precisely the one which you claim. From 1272 to 1280 is dated the alleged move of the Baux family from France, and then connecting it with the Mate Balsic from May of 1304. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If this particular book was translated in Serbo-Croatian, and if you read it as you said, please tell me what was his title in Serbo-Croatian. And as you read it, you can tell me which was the other family who was from a French origin according to Lenormant. Why I mention Albania so much? It is because the history of the Balšić is linked with Albania as well as Montenegro and Serbia. If you read this book, you should know that. All the authors you mention don't give any proof of the Vlach ascendance of the Balšić family. They juste say that "the Balšić are probably of Vlach origin". Probably, yes, probably, that's so scientific, and so balkanic. People in the Balkans are so centered on their small nations that they can't imagine that a "glorious noble family" could have an origin other than theirs. And if they can imagine that, it is often to say they are ...ized Vlach and that's all. The fact that pseudo-historians say that the Balšić were of a Vlach origin is first because most of the time they didn't read Lenormant, wich is understandable, and second because they don't want to say they were Albanian (which, in fact, they were not). Oh and what the "Historical lexicon to Montenegro" says about the Baux directly comes from Lenormant's book, written in 1861. Lenormant was indeed the first to find the link between the Baux and the Balšić. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.60.25 (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I said that didn't I? ;)
 * You shouldn't insult these historians just because they claim something with which you do not agree. This would make most modern researchers "pseudo-historians".
 * All I'm saying is that there are numerous theories. If you refer to this article itself, you should notice that the theory on the French/Provencal origin already is in the article, just like the other theories I mentioned, e.g. Italian/Neapolitan origin ("del Balzo"). Finally a current argues Gothic origins. It's all very known to me, so I do not understand what is your point. All theories should be pointed out, as they are right now.
 * BTW I do not understand what you are trying to say "People in the Balkans are so centered on their small nations that they can't imagine that a "glorious noble family" could have an origin other than theirs. And if they can imagine that, it is often to say they are ...ized Vlach and that's all., since that is what they are doing exactly - acknowledging their most probably Vlach origin. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with him, I read the French book he mentioned which is fortunately available on Google books in pdf format. Actually, the Italian/Neapolitan and the French/Provencal theories are the same. In fact, del Balzo is just the italianized de Baux name. From what I read in the book, a guy called Bertrand de Baux settled in Durazzo (modern Durrës) when the Kindgom of Albania was dominated by the French dynasty of the Angevins. It is clear for Lenormant that the Balsic were his descendants, for many reasons: they beared a coat of arms very similar to that of the Baux; at a moment the Pope sent a letter to one of the leader of the Balsic calling him del Balzo; the Balsic had strong links with Helena of Anjou. I think Lenormant is right, but as you said PaxEquilibrium, we should keep in mind that this is still a theory, for the simple reason that the link between Bertrand de Baux and the Balsic is still uncleared. For the Vlach theory however, there are no arguments. Moreover, the root Balsh doesn't mean anything in the Vlach language. So I really think this guy, or I should say Lenormant because in fact he's the one who discovered the supposed link between the Balsic and the Baux, is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.115.177.41 (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrin or Serbian
Here, I'll start a topic for the discussion, then. Figure something out, you two, because this daily reverting is silly. And play nice. --CrnaGora 10:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd gladly discuss over. Personally I thought that presented sources in the article themselves speak enough.
 * However I don't know to what extent is Critika1's good will. He called 5 times users so far "Chetniks" (racist ethnic slur), including me, ignores all warnings and you well alone know what he's doing at the Montenegrin language article. --PaxEquilibrium 14:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ballsha is an Albanian name, deriving from ball - forehead (as in Triballi, family name of Gjergj Kastrioti's mother)..in slavic languages it means nothing!! Ballsha were Albanian nobles, the fact that they were vassals of Serbia doesn't turn them into Slavs...same old Balkan dump logic!! 151.26.110.85 (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Argument
First off, I want to say that I don't see what precisely makes the Balshics "Montenegrin". Sure, they are a part of Montenegrin history, but they most definitely do not historically belong to that part (perhaps the Crnojevics do, but he does not). I myself do not understand the division of Montenegrins on "real Montenegrins" and "Serbs" and think that the 200,000 Serbs should return themselves to what they were (Montenegrins) before they ticked "Serb" on the 2003 census, to end this troublesome rift amongst the Montenegrin people, but who am I to tell people who/what they are? It's just as so that I cannot see that sometimes, the Serbian identity that is cannot be separated from Montenegrin history is openly denied (nationalist arguments if Montenegrins are "really Serbs" do not speak in support of this - anyone is whatever he wants to be, and I'm convinced that most of us will have Illyrian blood, rather than Slavic!)

To point at the beginning - the Balsics were obviously of non-Slavic origins. The theory on the Vlach origin is perhaps the most true one - in which case the family was Slavicized due to the impressive culture of the Serbian Kingdom/Empire (Vlachs were easily subjected to assimilation).

In the times of dying-out Doclea and the age of Zeta, there were 4 peoples altogether in Montenegro, as testified by King Stefan Milutin, by Jelena Balsic, by Stefan Decanski, by Ivan Crnojevic, by Djuradj Balsic, by princess Milica and by Stefan Uros: Serbs, Albanians, Latins (sometimes called Romans) and Vlachs. Taking to granted the Balsics were Vlachs, then they probably assimilated into Serbs.

Next point: Đurađ I of Zeta was the one who convened the Council of the Serbian Orthodox Church in 1375, "disappointed in the lack of organization in the Serbian people".

Critika expressed how they cannot be Serbs because they separated from Serbia - I'll answer with a counter-question: Why did Kosovo under the Brankovics separate Serbia? Why did Moravia under the Lazarevics separate? Why did in the feudal anarchy all that remain remained Macedonia of the Mrnjavcevics?

I'll upload the coins that the Balsics forged (I think I have a photo of one somewhere) and it says "Serb Lords, the Balsics".

In the very end, the Balsics desired a reunification of Serbia and Bal%C5%A1a III left Zeta in heritage of the Serbian Despot, whom he saw as the possible re-forger of the lost Serbian realm.

So if nothing, it makes at least insane to remove the categories from the article.

P.S. I do not now what is more weirder, this which is Critika1 doing in here - or User:Nikola Smolenski removing Montenegrin from Nicholas I of Montenegro. --PaxEquilibrium 15:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Encyclopedia Britannica:
 * Although the Serbs have come to be identified closely with the Eastern Orthodox tradition of Christianity, it is an important indication of the continuing marginality of Zeta that Michael, the first of its rulers to claim the title king, had this honour bestowed on him by Pope Gregory VII in 1077. It was only under the later Nemanjic rulers that the ecclesiastical allegiance of the Serbs to Constantinople was finally confirmed. On the death of Stefan Dusan in 1355, the Nemanjic empire began to crumble, and its holdings were divided among the knez (prince) Lazar Hrebeljanovic, the short-lived Bosnian state of Tvrtko I (reigned 1353-91), and a semi-independent chiefdom of Zeta under the house of Balsa, with its capital at Skadar. Serb disunity coincided fatefully with the arrival in the Balkans of the Ottoman armies, and in 1389 Lazar fell to the forces of Sultan Murad I at the Battle of Kosovo.


 * After the Balsic dynasty died out in 1421, the focus of Serb resistance shifted northward to Zabljak (south of Podgorica). There a chieftain named Stefan Crnojevic set up his capital. Stefan was succeeded by Ivan the Black, who, in the unlikely setting of this barren and broken landscape and pressed by advancing Ottoman armies, created in his court a remarkable if fragile centre of civilization. Ivan's son Djuradj built a monastery at Cetinje, founding there the see of a bishopric, and imported from Venice a printing press that produced after 1493 some of the earliest books in the Cyrillic script. During the reign of Djuradj, Zeta came to be more widely known as Montenegro (this Venetian form of the Italian Monte Nero is a translation of the Serbian Crna Gora, "Black Mountain"). --PaxEquilibrium 15:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Quoting information from "History of Montenegro" recorded by the Metropolitan of Cetinje:
 * Турски изасланици све казаше своме цару Аркану < Оркану >, који изненада по ноћи на Србље удари: кнеза Вука с породицом убише, и изгибе много српске војске, због чега син му Марко побјеже турском цару, а Србљи поставише кнеза Лазара себи за господара. На овом избору била је сва српска господа, осим зетског и црногорског херцега, који је у то вријеме био Баоша син Страцимиров, а војводство је примио послије Јована Првог херцега, који је пак потицао из породице кнеза Вукана, сина Симеона Немање, и звао се Јован Први Црнојевић.

In the very end (taking to granted the Serbian Church and all), it seems perfectly sane to put "Serbian" in the article, even if their ancestors were one day Croats like User:Red Croat claims. --PaxEquilibrium 16:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Since User:Bbik criticized me, I'm gonna try to translate this:


 * The Turkish emissaries told everything to their tsar Arkan < Orkhan >, who surprisingly in the night stroke the Servians; knez Vuk with his family murdered, and great part of the serbian army killed, because of which son of him Marko fled to the Turkish czar, and the Servians put knez Lazar for their lord. On this election the entire serb lordship was present, except the zetan and montenegrin herzog, who in that time was Balsha, son of Stracimir, and the Dukedom he received after John the First herzog, who descended from the family of knez Vukan, son of Stefan Nemanja, and his name was John < Ivan > the First Crnojevic. --PaxEquilibrium 16:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

---There was no evidence to suggest they wanted to unite with raskia/serbia, they are not serbs, but zetans/dukljans/montenegrins whatever you want to call us, duklja and zeta as well as montenegro have always had independence for long periods of time, and this is because of the fact that montenegrins are not the same as serbs.


 * But please explain the arguments I exposed...
 * Do not simply revert on a non-regular basis. --PaxEquilibrium 15:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 4 ethnic groups in duklja, the Dukljans being the "latins" who were slavic-speaking catholics, who were converted by stefan nemanja when he annexed Duklja, i believe todays Montenegrins to be the descendents of these people
 * The balsici where either albanian or vlach origin, and promoted a independent zeta, you cannot deny this, there is nothing serbian about them, except the fact that they spoke a dialect of it, to me they are a symbol of the present day Montenegrin identity - which is heavily mixed with croatian and albanian cultures(mixing of tribes, croatian names/last names)
 * All this said I view the Balsici as Montenegrins although in those times they would be "Zetan" or "Dukljan"


 * First of all it was "Serbs"; or just "Slavs", if you refer to ancient Doclea. Second of all, they weren't all Catholics - a large part of them was Orthodox. Third, Stefan Nemanja did not annex Duklja (what's more he expanded its territories), and he did not convert the Doclean populace to Orthodoxy. And lastly and most importantly - what has this got to do with the Balshichs? BTW, only a small part of present-day Montenegrins descends from the Docleans.


 * Yes, they are most likely of Vlach origin. However they never created an independent realm - when the concept of a "Serbian Empire" died (in 1395), they very soon annexed their remains to a re-unified Serbian Despotate (in 1427).


 * However, historiography remembers them as a Serbian dynasty - because that's what they were - as I presented to the up. The Balsics are not a symbol of present-day Montenegrin identity at all; not at all. --PaxEquilibrium 20:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Duklja was in effect "Red Croatia" not-serb whatsoever, so please get your facts straight, thats why today Montenegrins view themselves seperate from serbs, because in effect they are


 * Not vlach origin, but Albanian origin, "Balshaj" is a common albanian last name and has meaning in albanian, not to mention vlachs are not found much in Montenegro/Zeta, this theory is much more sound and makes sense considering Montenegro's history


 * History does not remember them as a serbian dynasty, You do, not history or true Montenegrins, They were Zetan/Dukljan rulers and were descended from Montenegrin-Albanians a.k.a Malsores(in albanian), note im not albanian but Montenegrin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.195.98.160 (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC).


 * AFAIK, mainstream historiography does as I presented you to the above. That includes the Encyclopedia Britannica (several versions of it), LaRousse Encyclopedia, the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Brockhaus Encyclopedia - including numerous records (a.k.a. all of them) of Montenegrin historiography from the 14th to the 20th century. This has nothing to do with me, because if I did that, I'd be violating WP:NOR, one of Wikipedia's most important rules. No, they're not from Malisoris - the Malisori were clans that have had absolutely nothing to do with medieval ruling dynasties of Montenegro (which were in the 14th century, you've missed for some centuries I'm afraid). On the side note, your edits (especially the unexplained removal of categories) look very much like vandalism, could you please stop it? Also saying that there's no reference - without referring to the sources I exposed to the up - is very naughty too. Thus, I am reverting your changes.
 * If you disagree with anything, bring up the discussion to here, and source it to back your words, lest they'll end up (like now) down to exactly that which you're accusing me right now - original research. Cheers, and cool off man. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 12:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very interested what do you consider by "true Montenegrins"? Historical governments in Montenegro have used that expression for Montenegrins who are *true Serbian patriots*, but I'm not sure you mean that fallacious opinion... --PaxEquilibrium 12:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and you're from Irvine, California - so I guess you're neither Albanian nor Montenegrin. :) --PaxEquilibrium 12:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * May I point out that you don't have to be born in Montenegro to be Montenegrin. To be Montenegrin, you have to have Montenegrin ancestry. May I remind you that many Montenegrins live in the USA and are also born there and yet, they still consider themselves to be either Montenegrin or Montenegrin-American. This is also the case in other countries like Germany, France, etc. --CrnaGora 18:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know. I was only joking (no bad faith intended) on Critika1's account.
 * Look what he's saying. He's practically saying that medieval Montenegro was a "Croatian state, whose rulers were Albanians". --PaxEquilibrium 21:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And that wouldn't be very strange at all. Besides at that time you had Italians ruled by the French, French ruled by the brits, Albanian ruled by greeks: why wouldn't you have an Albanian ruler on Montenegro. The relationship between Montenegro and Albanian principalities was extremely close at that time. The fact is that so far although lots of studies have been made on the Balshaj, very little has been left in writing. sulmues (sulmues)--Sulmues 18:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Cyrillic
In Cyrillic it's written with an š, but most scholars use sh instead š and they don't use the form Balsic, but Balsa or Balsha. There is 1 result about "House of Balsic", but 74 House of Balsa. It'd be better to move this to one of the Balsa/Balsha family titles.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.houseofbalsa.com/ company is included in that. -- WhiteWriter speaks 18:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are 11-14 of the results i.e there are still about 60 House of Balsa results and only 1 House of Balsic. However, the most prevalent result is Balsha family.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Page 3 of 30 results " And that's it... :) And you are welcome to bring relevant sources and references for this info, not just google hits test. -- WhiteWriter speaks 19:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This is supposed to be neutral enciclopedia?
Please stop this greatSerbian nationalism and stop reverting ethnicity of various Montenegrin dynasties when you have not a single (real)proof for your claims.By the way,Balsics were Roman Catholic,and this by it self is pretty much a proof that THEY WERE NOT SERBIAN,so leave it blank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montenegro in my heart (talk • contribs) 23:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Your conclusion is wp:or. Don't remove informations based on the referenced sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

20 century historian(s) writes somewhere that Balsics were Serbs and it is a proof?It doesnt matter that he does not have a single proof for his claim(nor did he looked for one because Balsic and Zeta were not focus of his writing).Than I guess that it is ok for me to cite Rotkovic or some other historian who says they were Montenegrins?Of course I will not do this becouse I am trying to be neutral.Balsic lived in late middle ages and we dont know what their ethnicity was(if ethnicity even existed in modern sense of the word).All we know for sure is that they were of Roman Catholic fate and everyone who knows anything about EX YU history knows that Serbs are of Ortodox fate and being Catholic almost certanly means you are not a Serb.It is common sense,deal with it! On personal note,you should be ashaimed of what you are doing.You are not Antidiscriminator,you are Disciminator and rasist of the first grade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.33.211.95 (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Enough already. They were Serbs, and if you have reliable sources refuting that, excluding Montenegrina.net, then please present them. Regarding their religious beliefs, or rather, church politics; they were originally Serbian Orthodox Christian, then converted to Roman Catholicism, then converted back to Orthodoxy. And why do you call Antidiskriminator racist?--Z oupan 01:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see.Montenegrina,site that collects writings published by Montenegrin authors is not ok,while rastko and njegos.org are ok.Talk about rasism,or better fashism. Whatever,I am not claiming any ethnicity for Balsic family.I can do that of course by saying they were Montenegrins and citeing Rotkovic,Vujovic,Dasic or several other historians,members of CANU(Montenegrin academy of arts and sciences),but I wont do that,because I dont believe that their ethnicity can be proven with certanity.On the other hand you are insisting on their Serbian ethnicity without any proof.This must stop! "Antidiscriminator" is a rasist,not because of his work on this article,but because of his work as a whole on wikipedia.He is negating one entire nation and trying to steel its entire history(he is not alone).It is pitty that people like him has so much influence on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.33.211.95 (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As Montenegrin identity solidifies itself, historiography will follow as in the case of Bulgarian personalities in the region of Macedonia that are also identified with the nation of RoM. Of course in Yugoslav historiography you can find even views that label them as Croatians (Dominik Mandić), but doesn't south Slavic cover all modern identities that were definitively formed long after the Balsic family? -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 01:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @ZjarriRrethues: I think that your edits are disruptive and could be seen by someone as tendentious. When you want to deny somebodies Serbian ethnicity you:
 * claim that "all modern identities that were definitively formed long after the Balsic family".
 * give WP:UNDUE weight to any existing theory (like Gustav Weigand here) which supports somebodies non-Serbian ethnicity.
 * use Sufflay as source to support somebodies non-Serbian ethnicity, but delete him as source when he support somebodies non-Albanian ethnicity under excuse that he is "non-English, outdated, irrelevant or incomplete source". One admin already noticed that you "act opportunistically when it comes to asserting or dismissing the reliability of sources, depending on whether they can offer an opportunity for scoring points in their ethnic tug-of-war;".
 * In case of theories about non-Albanian ethnicity of people like Skanderbeg, Peter Spani etc... you use completely different perspective and rationale. You delete (like with this diff) any sourced addition which supports their non-Albanian ethnicity although they lived in the same period as members of the Balsic family.
 * Gustav Weigand was lingust who lived in the same period as Sufflay who was historian. If you want to prove that the above mentioned admin's statement is wrong add Sufflay's opinion about the Greek ethnicity of Kastrioti family to the article about Kastrioti family and Skanderbeg . --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm quoting Malcolm and you can find those views on modern reliable sources too(I'm quoting neither Sufflay nor Weigand directly). Malcolm himself considers that Weigand confirmed his theory. Various opinions have been expressed concerning the national origin of the Balsici family. They have been considered of Vlach, Albanian, Serbian, and even French origin.. Even Schmitt, whom you've been using as a source on many articles about the region and I still consider extremely POV and don't think that he should be used as a source admits that  Im äußersten Westen, in der Metohija, trat ein weiteres Geschlecht auf, dessen Herkunft (serbisch, albanisch, vlachisch) unklar ist: die Balsici (albanisch: Balsha). (Kosovo: Kurze Geschichte einer zentralbalkanischen Landschaft). Also  Die Balsici (alb. Balsha), deren ethnische Zugehörigkeit (Albaner, Serben oder Vlachen) unklar ist, kontrollierten kurzzeitig das Gebiet ... (Kosovo, 2006 by Bernhard Chiari and Agilolf Keßelring). If you want to remove the attribution, please feel free to do so as it doesn't matter since we're not dealing with any fringe view. It isn't prudent at all to misrepresent more than one-year-old statements, especially ones that come from FutureP, an admin who has opposed the views you've been trying to add on Skanderbeg etc. That being said I suggest you stick to Toddst's 3RR warning and not get involved in any other Montenegrins vs. Serbs edit wars.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Even Schmitt, whom... I still consider extremely POV and don't think that he should be used as a source" Why did you promote Siege of Krujë (1466–1467) to GA level if you consider Schmitt extremely POV source which should not be used as source taking in consderation that he is used as source more than 20 times in this article? I think that you again proved that you "act opportunistically when it comes to asserting or dismissing the reliability of sources, depending on whether they can offer an opportunity for scoring points in their ethnic tug-of-war;".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: I don't care what ethnicity Balšić family was. Like I already explained, the only reason why I reverted IP user and Montenegro in my heart was because they deleted cited informations. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I added the Serbian view too the inclusion of the Montenegrin view is up to "Montenegro in my heart". The parts attributed to Schmitt aren't particularly disputable so if Gaius decides to nominate it on FA he can replace Schmitt.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Very opportunistic indeed. Do you intend to add Sufflay's opinion about the Greek ethnicity of Kastrioti family to the article about Kastrioti family and Skanderbeg?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This will stop, If you want to make specific suggestions on how to improve the article, this page is the right page. If you want to make general rants about your ethnic enemies, you will find yourselves blocked or with editing restrictions. Toddst1 (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Maps
Map of family possessions (DII, BIII)

--Z oupan 12:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Reference or source missing
"The family is KNOWN to have seized control through trickery, such as against the Dukagjini family, and many people were deported or murdered." - this is a serious claim and without certified reference it should not be allowed to remain as such. 77.46.214.174 (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Surname
Their original surname is Balsha or Balshaj,even in British Encyclopedia is written "Balsha" here you got a ton of reference about it.--AlbertBikaj (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No doubt you know that your move to Albanian language version of the name is controversial and that you should initiate WP:RM process in case of controversial moves. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I used Encyclopaedia Britannica as reference,an 200 years old book,and there are more than 100 references from old books in french,english,albanian,etc. The Balsha/Balsic article is wroten according books which were published in our age,meanwhile the books like Encyclopaedia Britannica and other world-wide known books are ignored because these books say that they were Albanians. AlbertBikaj (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Also,I suggest to create a special article about their ethnicity or origin,because there are so many sources which claim that they are Albanians,Vlach,Serbians and French. AlbertBikaj (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But we should use modern sources. We are living in modern time, so sources should be modern too. If you want, you can add old sources too, that should be interesting to see. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  09:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

, your move is contested. Please follow WP:RM.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Even better then,because there are more than 30 books which approve their Albanian ethnicity. For example book of Anna Di Lellio,Pëllumb Xhufi, Noel Malcolm, Henry Smith Williams, Fan Stilian Noli,Starvo Skëndi,Piro Tase, Kristo Frasheri, Miranda Vickers, Count Cedomilj Mijatovic,Monique O'Connell,Tony Jaques,Bashkim Iseni,Aleks Buda,Elisavet A. Zachariadou,etc etc. AlbertBikaj (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There is already a section, "origin", which shows the views of various scholars. There are no primary sources which show that they were identified as Albanian or even spoke or ever used Albanian; the fact that parts of the family ruled northern Albania is not the same as being ethnic Albanian. Also, the fact remains that they signed themselves in Old Serbian (Cyrillic), and used Serbian titles. The family members also used the terms "Srbljem" and "Srpskoj zemlji" for their people/lands after the fall of the Serbian Empire.--Z oupan 11:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

can you make the request for me,because I still don't know how to use some wikipedia options. Thank you! AlbertBikaj (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course . Please write here


 * "your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please present Google Books or Google News Archive results before providing other web results."
 * and I will initiate RM on your behalf.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no point in moving the article to a name that is against historiography.--Z oupan 11:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Balsha/Balshaj family is mentioned in "The Siege of Shkodër"(De obsidione Scodrensi) written by Marin Barleti (published in 1504-1505) which makes it one of the oldest references. Anyway,the term Balsha/Balshaj is officially used in Universities of Albania,Kosovo and other international Universities like Columbia University ,Indiana and Michigan. The oldest reference about term "Balšić" is written in 1891 by Bork Brđanin. In British Encyclopedia's is written "Balsha" here. Term Balšić is mostly used by Serbian scholars,meanwhile term Balsha is used even by the notable British historian Noel Malcolm and Oliver Jens Schmitt. AlbertBikaj (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

In historiography of Serbia and Montenegro is used Balšić,but the oldest historiography's shows that the original name is "Balsha" or "Balshaj". AlbertBikaj (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Original name" is not the proper wording. The fact remains that the family is part of the Serbian nobility, and claimed and was identified as such in contemporary times. Your claim of 1891 as the oldest reference about "Balšić" is terribly wrong.--Z oupan 11:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find any older reference.AlbertBikaj (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In the modern spelling:, but the most important, from 1372: , and the later ones also use that same spelling. The fact is that the "original surname" was spelled in Latin as "Balsich", which is not the same as "Balsha" or "Balshaj". Please do not use Original research.--Z oupan  12:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No answer then.--Z oupan 12:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't have right to delete references,because they are not just simple books,but world wide known books (Encyclopaedia Britannica citations cannot be false) The name Balsha is founded in official historical books in Albania,Kosovo,USA,UK etc. If you delete once again references I'll report you. There are Ottoman documents which provide that their original surname was Balsha,I'm going to find them and I'll post them here ;) AlbertBikaj (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, you are using WP:OR. None of those presented state that "Balsha" was the Albanian name of the family. There are no (none) sources that they used the Albanian language, or no contemporary Albanian sources using another name. Seriously, how could Ottoman documents prove that the family name was indeed something else than Balšić? Your POV is getting tiresome, you started with claiming that the family was Albanian, then that their surname is not their "original" one; your edits are disruptive and judging by your comments here you have nothing factual that would change the lead section.--Z oupan 17:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Balsha is written in Albanian historical books,Encyclopaedia Britannica,University of Michigan,University of Indiana,University of Palermo. There are tons of documents which prove usage of "Balsha" surname too. I'm not claiming that they were Albanians,because their ethnicity is still mysterious. official Montenegrin history books claim that they had French origin,meanwhile Ango-American and Italian scholars claim that they were Albanians,other claim that they were Vlachs,so It's not clear yet. Since when I've puted correct references you don't have right to delete it. You are using only serbian version and deleting every argument which approves Albanian version of name or origin. Wikipedia is a neutral source,so as it you should keep it neutral. This is not WikiSerbia or WikiAlbania,but Wikipedia! Please undo your delete's! AlbertBikaj (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way,according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (which I used as references) claim that they were Albanians or Vlachs.AlbertBikaj (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are inconsistent. Read your previous comments: "Even better then,because there are more than 30 books which approve their Albanian ethnicity". I was the one who added the origin section so I am perfectly aware of the theories. You have presented no studies. Regarding "Balsha" – it needs to be pointed out that it is incorrect, as it is a given name (Balša/Балша), and not an actual family name, and in no way is this variant "the Albanian variant". Contemporary sources use the correct "Balšić". The variant "Balshaj" is evidently an Albanianized modern invention, and should never be used. Please do not enumerate universities, as that is confusing and misinforming. Also, the two notable authors you mentioned both use "Balšići ... Balsha".--Z oupan 18:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)



Refrain from original research. Please continue the discussion in a non-bludgeoning manner.--Z oupan 18:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I used just like you book references from different historians (University books like :University of Michigan,Indiana,Colorado etc,but for you they aint trustful. But there are much more book's who approve "Balsha" surname,but not Albanian ethnicity. I think Malcolm is the most reliable (the dual ethnicity Albanian and Serbian). Anyway here you can find more than 200 book references. And if you like modern one,you have books of Anna Di Lellio,Pellumb Xhufi,Miranda Vickers,Paulo Petta,Lucia Nadin etc. Albanian name of Balsic(Balsha) should be there. AlbertBikaj (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again a false conclusion, the books include both given name and in your case, surname, as well as entirely unrelated. Again, you are including university names. None of your examples are scholarly weighting regarding the surname or ethnicity (or scholarly weighting period). Malcolm is biased, and pro-Albanian can be said with the non-Albanians you mention by name (I don't know who Paulo Petta is). Again, Malcolm uses both Balšić and Balsha (the latter in brackets). --Z oupan 20:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Well I suggested to use both, Balsic and Basha. There are many other authors who use Basha,and It would be fair to use it in the article. AlbertBikaj (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * do you still want to rename this article or not? If you still want it, please ping me when you write the above mentioned rationale.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I had written it and I just tagged you. And please can you revert again the edits which I made (Not the tittle but the surname part in description which are written in Serbian and in Latin,I dont know why Zoupan deleted it. AlbertBikaj (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * there are several contradictory edits and comments of yours. You first wanted to rename this article and now you want to use both names. Please clarify what is your position and if you still want to rename this article. To avoid confusion, please send me a message at my talkpage and clarify what is your exactly your proposal and your rationale which I can use in WP:RM process according to above mentioned instructions. Regrding your request to revert your edits, I think you probably meant to restore them. That would be violation of multiple wikipedia policies and even your invitation to me is also violation of multiple wikipedia policies. I don't want to participate in violation of wikipedia policies. Your bold edits are reverted by multiple editors. With good arguments. Instead to edit war please reach consensus trough discussion or wp:dr.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Since the beginning I suggested bilingual version "Balsha noble family (Balsic)". Anyway what I meant up there was to keep the Albanian version too,because it's used in a lot of historical books as I said before. Another argument is that there are many sources that uses Albanian version "Balsha" like Oliver Schmitt ("Arbëria Venedikase"), Paulo Petta (Despoti d'Epirio e principi di Macedonia), Calabrian Archives,etc etc..AlbertBikaj (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good. Please be so kind to send me a message at my talkpage and clarify what is your exactly your proposal and also write your rationale at my talkpage so I could use it in WP:RM process according to above mentioned instructions. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Doubts sometimes can be somehow lifted by looking at the etymology of the words, this helps a lot especially in the Balkans. The name Balsha is etymologically Albanian!!! It stems from ballë-forehead/leader, a word that have yielded many words: bash<ballsh - bow of a ship, ballosh - courageous, ballce - challange etc. Variants are Triballi (in Greek sources Tribalos, the name of a barbarian in Plato's Republic), the family name of Skanderbeg's mother. Moreover Ballsh is an Albanian town. It has NO meaning in Slavic whatsoever, Balsiç is a slavicized version of Balsh. Please take this into account!! Etimo (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless you can find reliable sources for your theory, what you've presented is entirely your own original research. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a theory, I'm an Albanian mother speaker and Ballsh is a town in my country and a widespread surname (cf. Belushi- the famed American actors, whose surname is a local variant of Balshi/Balshaj/Berisha - the former prime minister/Belisha - with widespread r/l dissimilation, Blushi - politician etc), and the terms I've provided above are all Albanian words used in everyday life, all stemming from ballë - forehead. Balsiç in Slavic means nothing, has no relevant etyomological connection, while in Albanian this is a highly productive root that have yielded tens of words. This is also the reason (one of them) why Albanian scholars consider the Balshaj to be Albanian, but of course, I would be considered biased if I quoted an Albanian scholar. Etimo (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is false etimology. What sources say is explained at Baleč.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid the etyomology you've given doesn't contradict mine, and still cannot be explained through Slavic phonology. The various versions of the name recorded (in Latin sources) is perfectly in line with the fonetics of Latin rendering of Albanian names (cf. Lezhe - Lat. Lisus etc), hence Balesium renders Balshi, while Barizi renders Berishi/Berisha, a perfect phonetical match. Furthermore Balshaj from Balsh (town) is straightforward, there's no intermediary. The name is Balshaj (hence Slavic Balshic), it's not Baliç (as it would have been if stemming from Balin Potok or Baleç, btw. if it is Slavic why is it not Baleç then????). As already mentioned the Albanian root ballë has yielded many family names in -sh similar to Balshaj, while in Slavic this has no etymology (you can't take into account the root *belo - white, as there's no chance it would have yielded Balshiç). I'm saying this because the Slavic name as it is does not fit AT ALL into Slavic phonology (if we want to overlook the fact that it is the obvious rendering of Balshaj) Etimo (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , Albanians never lived in Baleč. Its name has nothing to do with Albanian language. Since mid 6th century this region of Roman Empire was populated by Slavs. It is mentioned in historical records before first Albanians were noticed and it ceased to exist in the mid 14th century, before substantial number of Albanians migrated into nearby region. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the town of Baleç is linked to the Albanian language or was Albanian, I'm saying that Balshiç CANNOT stem from Baleç!! These are two different words and roots!! Balshiç is the Slavic rendering of Albanian Balshaj (root balsh/ballsh - to be on the front line, be bold, courageous ) which, as I said above, is an Albanian surname, town and word root that have yielded tens of words (the fact that Balsh, ballë, ballcë, bash (< PAlb *balsh) etc are Albanian is accepted by all mainstream linguists, pick whoever you want). Again, if Baleç is the root of Balshiç, why and how did it turn so oddly into Balshiç?? Cause that's the point, Baleç has nothing to do with Balshiç!! Etimo (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Any reliable sources for your etimology? Besides the source already used in the article which discuss connection of the name of the Balšić noble family with the name of this town, there are more, like: .--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Camarda doesn't say the Balesium/Balsa/Balça is a Slavic name, he just reports something already known from ancient soruces, that this family name was reported in this way in Latin sources. But many Albanian names of that time were recorded in the same way, that's the Latin pronunciation of foreign words and doesn't prove a Slavic origin of the name! What I'm saying is that according to Albanian (and Slavic) phonetic laws, accepted by mainstream scholars (although simple horse sense would suffice), Balshaj is FAR closer to Balshiç than Baleç, which would have yielded *Baliç or *Balçiç (with typical Slavic -iç ending). I mean don't you think it's a tiny convenient to ascribe an OBVIOUS Albanian word so widely attested in toponyms, family names and word roots to an identical 'Slavic word' which have a dubious (to say at least) origin and a very flawed etymology not supported by phonetic laws? Etimo (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not say that Balsic surname has Slavic origin. I clearly wrote that "Since mid 6th century this region of Roman Empire was populated by Slavs". Many people acquire their names from toponyms. Reliable sources say that name of Balšić family has origin in Baleč. That would not be the first time that some Slavic family acquire its name from some Latin language toponym. Take Castrioti family for example (castrum). Without reliable sources for your etimology it is just an original research. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, you've produced absolutely nothing in the way of sourcing other than you own WP:PPOV and WP:OR. Please drop the stick. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I hope you didn't mean the Kastrioti family was Slavic, otherwise you should delete the 'Anti' part from your name!! As far as evidence goes, you got plenty from the user Albert Bikaj, but still the article is almost full of Serbian (or Slavic) references. Guess you just don't like the authors!! I'm not pushing for an Albanian origin of the ethnicity, I'm just saying that the origin of the name is beyond any doubt etymologically Albanian and this can be easily proven. Balëz (cf. also modern village Bajzë<*Balzë), CANNOT yield the name Balshiç, while Balshaj can be connected to Balesium, which is just a Latinization of it, as is Latin Alessio for Lezhë!! According to Albanian phonetic laws, Albanian sh was rendered as s in Old Albanian! Furthermore, why do Albania have Ballsh for town while no Slavic territory does?? It is not POV pushing, it's a common-sense deduction that Balshiç has no satisfactory Slavic etymologically explanation, thus is simply the slavisized version of Albanian Balshaj (which as mentioned above has PLENTY of other name variants spread all over Albania, while NONE in Slavic) occurred when the Serbian kingdom included that territory in its domains. This is quite normal as this domination also brought about tens of Slavic toponyms !Again, I'm making this a simple linguistic issue. 1) quote me one SERIOUS linguist who asserts that Balëz/Baleç has yielded the name of Balshiç. G. Weigand, a linguist, asserts in fact that Balshaj are Albanians (mixed with Vlachs) based on the etymology of the name 2) How can an Albanian town near Shkodër (btw etymo from balë - white, related to ballë - forehead, Slavic has bjelo NOT balë!!), in the heart of historic Albanian territory, be inhabited by Slavs to the point that they even gave the name to a noble family, but not an Albanian prince named Balshaj who is recorded to have dominated that territory (and beyond, as far as Vlorë through the typical Albanian custom of the triumvirate - rule of three brothers), be an archenemy of the Serbian car, turned to Catholicism, be an ally of Albanian principalities and even led an Albanian coalition (Balsha II with Ndre Muzaka) against the successors of Dushan? Quite far-fetched, don't you think? 3) Yes, Albanian families such as the Kastrioti took their name from the place of their origin (Kastrat, Albania), but why then should with the Balshaj be different, given that Balëz was and is an Albanian town in Albanian territory etymologically explained by Albanian language?? These blatant contradictions are just to obvious to be ignored..Etimo (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Etimo, stop soapboxing. You are wasting editor time and energy by subjecting us to your own theories. If you have reliable sources to back up your contentions, produce them. The onus is not on anyone to disprove what you can't prove... so WP:PROVEIT or stop being WP:POINTy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, if I provide sources would you include them in the article? Etimo (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly: provided that they qualify as reliable sources (as opposed to WP:FRINGE), and are WP:DUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Edgar Hösch
Edgar Hösch's quote: "Under Turkish pressure, the Albanian families of the Balsici and the Thopia...". Does this necessarily refer to ethnic rather than territorial identification? The quote relates to the Balšići active in Albania.--Z oupan 20:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. Many people who lived in Albania as territorial identification which included almost all Montenegro (part of Albania Veneta at the end of medieval period) were referred to as Albanians although they were not ethnic Albanians. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL! This is so desperate!213.133.24.74 (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Balsic family ethnicity
The provided references make it clear that balsic family might have been Albanian,Vlach,French or serb so... why infobox says only serb?maybe because Zoupan wants them to be serb Rolandi+ (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Read Ethnic group. Understand the definition of theory. The provided references make it clear that there are theories. Undue weight should not be added to the infobox.--Z oupan 10:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

About the Balsic family ethnicity :There are discussions among scholars about the ethnicity so it's not important to put it in the infobox.It' might be albanian,vlach,serb or french so the best thing to do is to delete ethnicity from the infobox.Readers can find the  serb ethnicity  theory at the theories section.(because the serb option is a theory, also albanian+vlach+french options are theories,the only problem here  is that you don't know what is a theory.Rolandi+ (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ethnic group: "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience." Give me one example where Albanian, or any of the other theories, would be plausible in the case of ethnicity (and notability) of this family, please. --Z oupan 19:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Due to sources having nothing reliable to say about their ANCESTORS, there has been speculation on their origin, which some deem unknown.(source wikipedia) The fact that they were a noble family under the Serb despotate/kindom doesn't mean that they were ethnically serb.For example: for ethnic groups in census ( kosovo) we use  "serb" and not "albanian" or "kosovan"  for the  people with  serb ancestors. Rolandi+ (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Speculations. Again, you fail to answer my questions. Present-day demographics do not relate to this matter.--Z oupan 20:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Off cource as you don't want Present-day demographics to  relate to this matter.Rolandi+ (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean?--Z oupan 20:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I mean that the only thing you want is Balsic family to be serb, not to use facts or reliable sourses.The sources say that Balsic family might have been alb/serb/french or vlach ,but you don't like this idea.Rolandi+ (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * According to historical facts and reliable sources, the family was indeed Serbian (primary notability being medieval Serbian history; identified as Serbian; Serbian language, Nemanjić legacy, etc). I would say that your behaviour is clearly anti-Serbian. No historical facts actually point that the family was Albanian (Albanian language, Angevin Albanian legacy, etc) rather than Serbian. Why would I "don't like it", when it was I who added all the theories in the first place?--Z oupan 20:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"No historical facts actually point that the family was Albanian (Albanian language, Angevin Albanian legacy, etc) rather than Serbian" (your own words)-now it makes sense.....the only problem for you is that references says that Balsic family might have been albanian. The fact that that family might have been alb/vlach/french doesn't mean that I am anti-serbian.This is your problem ---you are afraid of anti-serbians....I would like to be your friend as you make me laugh so much. The fact that that family was nobility under Serbian kingdom (so it's part of serbain history), doesn't mean that they were serbs (serb national  heroes weren't turks only because Serbia was under Turkish occupation ).serbian language-if you are under the Serbian kingdom and you are part of the nobility of Serbian kingdom you have to speak serbian ,this doesn't mean that you are serb. "No historical facts actually point that the family was Albanian"(your words),so why scholars say that balsic might have been albanian(vlach,french)?just for their fun?You are so ridiculous!!!!!!!!!! Rolandi+ (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You just refuted your own position. Members of the Balšić family were not "nobility under Serbian kingdom". They became nobility during and after the fall of the Serbian Empire (in post-1355 period). So your hipothesis that they were referred to as Serbs and "had to speak Serbian" as part of the nobility of the Serbian Kingdom is incorrect. Efen the territory where they were nobility was not Serbia, but Southern Montenegro and Albania - so called Albania Veneta. That means that when sources refer to them as Serbs it is because they were Serbs. Not because of the language they spoke, their citizenship of the Kingdom of Serbia or because they lived on the territory of Serbia. Next time be careful before you start ridiculing and laughing at somebody.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

MAYBE YOU NEED TO GO AND READ THE ARTICLE.IT SAYS: The Balšić (Serbian Cyrillic: Балшић, pl. Балшићи/Balšići; Latin: Balsich) was a noble family that ruled "Zeta and the coastlands" (southern Montenegro and northern Albania), from 1362 to 1421, DURING AND AFTER the fall of the Serbian Empire(after that they were under gospodins and  serb despots-See wikipedia). Balša, the founder, was a petty nobleman who held only one village during the rule of Emperor Dušan the Mighty (r. 1331-1355), and only after the death of the emperor, his three sons gained power in Lower Zeta after acquiring the lands of gospodin Žarko (fl. 1336-1360) under unclear circumstances, and they then expanded into Upper Zeta by murdering voivode and čelnik Đuraš Ilijić (r. 1326-1362†). Nevertheless, they were acknowledged as oblastni gospodari of Zeta IN EDICTS OF Emperor Uroš the Weak (r. 1355-1371)Rolandi+ (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wrote. "during and after the fall of the Serbian Empire " The point is on fall . They ruled southern Montenegro and northern Albania (not Kingdom of Serbia) during the fall (1362-1371) and after the fall (1372-1421) of Serbian Empire. In period 1362-1371 the ruler of Empire was Uroš the Weak. Do you know why he is referred as weak? Because he was unable to control his empire and force his nobility to respect his rule. Your hipothesis that he forced Balšić family to learn and speak Serbian language during his reign and 50 years after it is absurd. If your hipothesis would be correct, in period 1371-1421 Balšić family would (be forced to) speak Turkish langauge. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

References makes it clear that they might have been alb/serb/vlach/french.Why do scholars think so?Because they hate serbs or because balsic family might have been french/alb /serb or vlach? Rolandi+ (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I replied to your comments about Balšić family being referred to as Serbs not because they were ethnic Serbs but because they were nobility of Serbian Kingdom, forced to speak Serbian as such. Actually, I do agree they were Albanian nobility also. Nevertheless, the territory where they were nobility is not the topic of this discussion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree that they were part of serb medieval history,I disagree with the fact that the infobox says that they were ethnically serb.The references make it clear that they might have been alb/serb/vlach/french .I think that the best thing to do is to delete ethnicity from the infobox. Rolandi+ (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Balšić (Balshaj)
Their ethnicity is not clear,so It would be better to create a special article about their origin. As it's known,there are different sources and different claims about their origin. So It would not be fair/neutral to declare them as serbs. AlbertBikaj (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is already too long section about their origin. Separate article would not be notable enough subject. On the other hand, would you support a separate section (not article, just section) on disputes about the ethnicity of Skanderbeg, which is notable subject of an ocean of works?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course I'd. You simply cannot say Balsic/Balshaj are serbs. Why? Because in the earliest documents they are mentioned as Normans,Albanians,Vlachs. Then as serbs,montenegrins (even if official history books of Montenegro represent the family of Norman decent). Wikipedia is free and neutral encyclopedia...AlbertBikaj (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Terribly incorrect conclusion. The earliest documents do not mention them as anything you claimed.--Z oupan 18:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator Thank you anyway,I just saw that you edited the subject about origin. I hope there won't be any changes in future. Best regards.AlbertBikaj (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Modern secondary sources have advantage to medieval documents. In their documents members of this family signed themselves as Балшић. Thanks for your support of idea to have separate section about Skanderbeg's origin. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggested move
I made a Google books search:
 * | "Balsha family" : 142 hits
 * | "Balšić family" : 66 hits

Any thoughts? 95.145.57.148 (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per WP:AT, precisely per consistency reasons.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain how Balšić is more consistent than Balsha? What about 'Recognizability'? Balsha is more recognizable, based on the search results, and more commonly used in English (WP:UCRN). You should take all factors into consideration. Ujkrieger (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that you know very well how Balšić is more consistent than Balsha. Your subsequent edits of articles about other members of this family (i.e. Đurađ I Balšić and George Strez Balšić) with intention to push Balsha name, never used by members of this family, prove that. I expect that you will soon continue with pushing "everybody are Albanians" point of view in articles about other members at Category:Balšić noble family. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You did not explain how "Balšić is more consistent than Balsha", you ignored by search results and the fact that you didn't criticise them shows that they were true and correct, you attacked by position rather than my argument, breaking the first commandment on your user page ("1. Thou shall not attack a person's character but the argument itself."), you bring up other articles and change the topic of conversation and argument. I am entitled to my point of view as long as I can back up anything I write with evidence, so don't worry about that. It is not I who claims that the Balsha and many of its members were Albanians, but rather the abundance of sources that you can find yourself and are available online and in books. Gjergj Balsha is called an Albanian by several authors whilst George Strez was Albanian on his mother's side and mainly fought with Albanians during his lifetime. You failed to criticize my arguments and resorted to criticising my ""everybody are Albanians" point of view", and so you leave me no option but to create the move request. Ujkrieger (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I explained how. I presented link to category with members of this family, all of them with Balšić surname. I never mentioned your character. Yes, all of them were Albanians, which does not make them ethnic Albanians. You are not the first and will certainly not be the last editor who will do everything to attribute Albanian ethnicity to all Albanians, even to people who lived in period when no Albanian ethnicity existed.  In my comments I believe I explicitly refuted central point of your point of view, based on wikipedia policy and link I presented. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 27 October 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There is a roughly equal distribution of opinions for Balšić as for Balsha. Sources also seem to use both, though there is some uncertainty as to exactly how many use either, as there is confusion over search terms, as well as reliability and topicality of the sources. There has been a focus on consistency within the discussion, with an assertion that all articles use Balšić, though the Heads section of the article shows usage of the Balsa name. This may be one of those situations in which either name could be used to identify the family, with neither name having precedence. In such situations we default to the existing title, especially if that is the original title, and the most stable. Given the situation, that there are alternative names, it might be appropriate to follow the guidance given in WP:OTHERNAMES and WP:ALTNAME and to mention both Balšić and Balsha in the opening sentence.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  18:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Balšić noble family → Balsha noble family – Most common based on Google books his. Ujkrieger (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:UCRN Also, please keep the discussion based on the most common name rather than the ethnicity or nationality of the family. Ujkrieger (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * | "Balsha family" : 142 hits
 * | "Balšić family" : 66 hits
 * Oppose - per WP:AT, precisely per consistency reasons. Common name for all members of this family is Balšić. That is why all articles on them ( link) have Balšić title. Google hit results are false, because editor who proposed renaming did not follow wikipedia rules for GBS and present only last page with wikipedia and llc deducted. Instead of 142-66=76, in reality it is 64-37=27. Main authors whose works are used in this article and who specialized in the subject (J.V. Fine and Alexandru Madgearu use Balsic version. Members of this family never used Albanian neologism Balsha to write their own family name. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Consistency comes second to common name. I was unaware of using '-wikipedia -llc', assume good faith, however regardless Balsha still received more Google Books hits than Balsic by your own search. Irrelevant if two authors used Balsic, common name prevails. Any sources for members not using this 'Albanian neologism' despite Madgearu saying 'and the Albanian rulers George II Basic (Balsha)'? Anyway, I don't see how that is relevant, common name in English is the priority. Stay on topic. Ujkrieger (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that the article name includes a natural disambiguator ("noble family"). Problem is in search query; the string "Balsha family" may have more, but that does not determine common name itself. Here you have an example:
 * "Balšić" "Zeta" (150), always family name; note also "Balšići" "Zeta" (84), "Balsid" "Zeta" (24)
 * "Balsha" "Zeta" (136), predominantly given name
 * Now, in terms of scholarly (RS) common name, Balšić leads by far. This is the real criteria. We have J. Fine, D. M. Nicol, E. Hösch, O. J. Schmitt, A. Madgearu, K. Jireček, M. Šufflay, E. J. Brill, The Cambridge Medieval History, etc.--Z oupan 10:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Please read the preceding sections. Faulty Google search hits review. Most importantly, if we would follow Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view, these kind of move requests would stop.--Z oupan  02:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Many of the hits for "Balsha" come from garbage of the "The Truth about Kosova" type, or else from very old publications (e.g. Edith Durham). If we look at sources from the last 50 years or so, "Balsic" and "Balsha" are roughly equal   (and the hits for Balsha still include the "Truth on Kosova" type garbage). Athenean (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. 142 vs 66 hits? I'm sorry but I've seen 1,420,000 hits vs 660,000 hits being rejected over the issue of consistency. And, no, trying to present your WP:POV version as WP:COMMONNAME = I have the trump card does not wash. "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent." prevails... as does WP:NOR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I remember a discussion about Fushe Kosove vs Kosovo Polje and it was made a big deal about Google hits. Whenever Google hits tell a different story, there is the question of consistency. If consistency is Ok, then it will be WP:BB. If it is not WP:BB, it will be something else. As long as the non-Albanian version prevails, whatever comes to mind is a reasonable cause. I would also suggest to my Athenian colleague above to put some restraint on labeling things as "garbage type" or "``Truth on Kosova`` type garbage". Mondiad (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So what about Kastrioti family?--Z oupan 10:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What bout them? Is the a Katriotić in discussion? Mondiad (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Srongly Support Also i strongly agree with Mondiad's assessment that editors should refrain from calling literature that may not be to their comfort with disparaging names. It makes the undertaking of discussion very unbecoming and not in good faith.Resnjari (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "strongly support", how? Your standpoint needs to be clearer, and note that it may be taken in consideration in other related possible move requests.--Z oupan 18:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Balsha have more hits then Balšić. Internationel00 (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As stated further above, the search string by itself is problematic for determining common name. As per WP:UCRN: "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." it then continues "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." this again determines Balšić as the common name, as Balsha is both ambiguous and inaccurate, and is not more frequently used by reliable sources. "Balsha" is a given name, and not family name, and the family itself used Balšić.--Z oupan 18:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Both accounts (Mondiad, User:Internationel00) showed up here after Resnjari sent them this [][] in their native language. Appears to be a case of disruptive wp:CANVASSing.Alexikoua (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Alexikoua, no one forces anyone to write here "Support" or "Oppose". And I can speak of myself. Who sent you by the way? Thank you. Mondiad (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Their origin isn't known but Robert Elsie and Durham say that Balsic/Balsha were Albanised Serbs. In addition their capital was an Albanian populated city and taking these into account they self-identified as Albanians.I-Impartial (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC) I-Impartial has been confirmed by CU as a sock of Rolandi+ Dr. K. 23:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Self-indentified as Albanian? Stop it. Here you have some real, non-OR identification: Đurađ I was styled "baron of Maritime Serbia", while Đurađ II called the Serbian kings "my holy forefathers", and decreed his heritage as a Serbian lord. Having property in Albania is one thing, self-identification another.--Z oupan 19:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan, give us sources, not your words.I-Impartial (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC) I-Impartial has been confirmed by CU as a sock of Rolandi+ Dr. K. 23:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note, I-Impartial is a newly created account, with only 5 contribs at the time of writing. Almost certainly a sock. Athenean (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm your sock Athenean. Go and report me.I-Impartial (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC) I-Impartial has been confirmed by CU as a sock of Rolandi+ Dr. K. 23:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The majority of Google results (excluding some non-neutral works as noted above) are in favor of the current name.Alexikoua (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kristaq Prifti's reputation
In this sentence, a wikipedia user calls twice the work of Kristaq Prifti, a respected Albanian historian, "garbage". Take note that Kristaq Prifti for several years in the 1990s has been the director of the Institute of History, perhaps the most important institute of the Academy of Sciences of Albania (see here), and the insults of a wikipedia user do not diminish his reputation.

Of course the higher the level of insult, the lower is the level of argument for the wikipedia user in question, as well as the credibility of a talk page, and the eventual result of the vote, but someone should report the problematic behavior of the wikipedia user in question, who brings a racist comment that is uncalled for in this discussion. The user in question clearly shows racist behavior towards Albanian historians, even the best of them, and no one bothers. This level of decorum in the discussion decreases the reputability of wikipedia.--Nauseeatedbywikilawyers (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And what exactly does this have to do with this article? Read Talk page guidelines. Also, you should declare what username you (usually) use.--Z oupan 20:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is always the case that any work that claims the "Truth" about something is generally speaking nationalist POV garbage. I've never heard of this Kristaq Prifti fellow and he could win the Nobel prize for all I care, but anything that claims to be the "Truth about Kosova" is nationalist garbage and nothing more.  I don't care if that offends or "nauseates" some people (or socks), it's just how it is and I fully stand by that characterization. Athenean (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Vlach-Albanian origin
According to serbian historian and academic Sima Ćirković Balšić family was of Albanian and Vlach decent. ("Primer nekih istaknutih rodova,kao sto su bili Balsici zatim Kalodurdevici-Crnojevici,Mazreki,Spani poakzuju da je put drusvenog uspona bio otvoren vlaskom i arbanaskom elementu" "Srbi u srednem veku",1995,page 197)Gheg (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC) —Confirmed sock of .--Z oupan 11:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please have the courtesy to read the talk page and archived talk before posting here. The subject has been discussed over and over again. This is a talk page, not a soapbox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:V
, for a user who has been editing this encyclopedia for years, you seem oddly ignorant of wiki policy. Due to your exhibiting of similar behavior on other articles and talk pages, I'm starting to think that you simply don't care. WP:V clearly states that extraordinary claims require solid proof from WP:RS. The claim here is that a) the ethnicity of this noble family was Albanian and b) that they sought to unite all ethnic Albanians into a single state (I call that Greater Albania, you can call it Mordor or King's Landing, for all I care). Citing the "Bulgarian Academy of Sciences" without an author, page number or accessible link clearly fails our verifiability criteria. What a strange hill to die on. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * First off, it seems to me that you are not fully aware of what is going on. When you say that Citing the "Bulgarian Academy of Sciences" without an author, page number or accessible link clearly fails our verifiability criteria, I am not sure what your point is. The reference provides the page number and a link to GoogleBooks. Whether you want to check it out or not is up to you. On the author, the Academy itself is the author, since it is a collective work. I will check the names of the involved academics and see what can be added to the author parameter. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Anyway the issue is who is the academic., its Dritan Ergo who published in the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Here is the article: .Resnjari (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , as I said in one of my edit summaries, the content can be further modified but not entirely removed. That an Albanian origin/identity/whatever is supported by some scholars is further proven by other sources added by me on the article. Furthermore, the claim is treated as a claim ("According to..."), not as a proven fact. What do you propose? Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I wait to see what says after the name was provided.  why did you remove most of this content: . Its RS and only one of those sources is being discussed here. You wrote in your edit summary that "get consensus on talk for any additions", however the other sources are not contested. Do you have any reasons for their exclusion? If not, apart from the one being discussed in the talkpage, the rest ought to go back.Resnjari (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, Khirurg, the one who accuses admins at ANI for "retaliatory" edits. :) He is welcome to discuss his opinion on the issue here, of course. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Alexandru Madgearu too mentions an attempt of the Balsici to unify the Albanian lands. He goes on to explain that was not a first form of a unitary and centralized Albanian state but, like other medieval polities, the temporary result of some circumstances. So again there is no "Greater Albania" here, contrary to Amanuensis Balkanicus' fear. We could place the info on the Balsici's attempt to a more appropriate section than the Origin one. I also came across an article by Zhelyazkova who is another academic that considers the family as an Albanian one. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , provide the page number and link to Madgearu on the talkpage. On the rest, i'll wait till the other two reply.10:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is page 83, The Wars of the Balkan Peninsula:Their Medieval Origins. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , the only one casting WP:ASPERSIONS is, rudely snarling that Greater Albania is my "problem" for pointing out how preposterous it is to characterize this medieval noble family as a cabal of Albanian nationalist irredentists. As for Mr. Madgearu, he writes the following: " Albanian historiography considers the attempt of the Balsic (also called Balsha) family to build a "Great Albania" that included Kosovo a first form of unitary and centralized Albanian state." Madgearu literally uses the term "Great Albania" and says that this is a view pushed by some Albanian historians. This is a source that I certainly didn't introduce to this discussion. Thus, I don't know what Ktrimi991 is going on about citing my "fear" of Greater Albania.
 * Furthermore, in referencing "Albanian lands", Madgearu is referring to the Balšić family's acquisition of territory inhabited by Albanians, plus modern-day Montenegro and Herzegovina, as the Serbian Empire collapsed. This differs significantly from the picture that certain users are trying to present of a noble family that pushed for the creation of a unified Albanian state in the modern sense. As for the inclusion of the "unification of Albanian lands" assertion, the only way it's going in is if it reads "some Albanian historians claim that the family sought to create a Greater Albania..." or something to that effect. Otherwise, take it to WP:DRN. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , actually this part of your comments were uncalled for, i.e "seem oddly ignorant of wiki policy. Due to your exhibiting of similar behavior on other articles and talk pages" is what i was referring too. No diffs, not needed. Anyway regarding the matter at hand, this family's origins are still debated in scholarship. Of the scholarship out there that gives two cents at researching this family is the Serbian and Albanian one overall with occasional non Balkan people here and there. Madgearu lists the position of one of these historiographies. I'll come up with a proposal in line with guidelines and in keeping with the sources.Resnjari (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It is good things are being discussed on the talkpage instead of edit-warring. This is a very contentious subject and needs consensus before anything can be added to the article. My own impression is that the sources are rather weak for the claim being made. A number of prominent historians consider the Balsic family to be of Slavic origin, thus the claim that they are of Albanian origin is against mainstream scholarship and requires strong sourcing. This is currently not the case. Madgearu does not make a claim regarding their ethnic origin, and the Bulgarian source is rather weak. Khirurg (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Madgearu supports a Vlach origin. I added that on the article but you rv. Nobody has been using Madgearu to support an Albanian one. Other sources, blindly deleted by you, support an Albanian origin. Re "edit-warring", how many times have you tried to make changes without consensus? Anyways, this is not the place to discuss that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , the matter regarding this family's origin is not in any way conclusive and still debated in scholarship. Separate to the issue that this thread discusses above, all other sources and thier sentences that added ought to be restored as they are RS. If the opinion of Karl Hopf, Čedomilj Mijatović, Ivan Stepanovich Yastrebov, Giuseppe Gelcich and Gustav Wiegand who lived nearly to over a century ago are in the article, mainstream scholars who have published RS material recently and in the not to distant past of 30, or 40 years, and stated a position on this family's origin also deserve the same mention, if not more as they come after and not before from a century ago and beyond.Resnjari (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @Amanuensis Balkanicus. If you are referring to me when you say that "the picture that certain users are trying to present of a noble family that pushed for the creation of a unified Albanian state in the modern sense", it is merely another aspersion, a very sad one. I am, as I have said several times, against removing the content entirely, not against further modifying it. You might accuse me, but those interested can see in my editing history the content I have added to other articles on the wrong interpretation of Medieval history by some (nationalist) segments of Albanian society, and the content on how Alb nobles in many cases fought against each other instead of fighting against the Ottoman armies. I did not add the claim on the Balsici's attempt as a proven fact but as a claim ("According to"), and I also added content on the theory on the family's possible Vlach origin. But since it is not the first time you make such comments on me (and others actually, including yourself when admins blocked you for socking with IPs), I will just ignore any further similar comment posted by you. Re Madgearu, I decided to bring him in the discussion as, in my view, he supports instead of opposing the core idea of Ergo. To all interested editors, I think the content can be written in these lines: "According to Ergo in the 2003 edition of the Bulgarian historical review, the Balšići were among the few Albanian families that understood that the formation of an Albanian state meant the unification of Albanian lands. According to Alexandru Madgearu, Albanian historiography considers the attempt of the family to build a "Great Albania" including Kosovo a first case of the unitary and centralized Albanian state. In his view, it was, like other contemporary entities, the temporary result of some circumstances." Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I looked up Dritan Egro, his publication record is paper thin to say the least . He does not have any publications in international English-language journals. So I am against inclusion. Madgearu on the other hand is acceptable. Khirurg (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "does not have any publications in international English-language journals." What Wiki guideline is that based on? No worries, if you insist I can easily post at RSN for comments by uninvolved editors. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Dritan Ergo has actually published internationally in English in mixed language publications such as his chapter titled "Islam in the Albanian lands (XVth-XVIIth Century" (2010). In Schmitt, Oliver Jens (ed.). Religion und Kultur im albanischsprachigen Südosteuropa [Religion and culture in Albanian-speaking southeastern Europe]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. pp. 13–52. ISBN 9783631602959.Resnjari (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ergo has also assisted professor Oliver Jens Schmitt in his research (p.8-9. ) and also coauthored academic works, with Konstantinos Giakoumis that were published for example in a Greek journal. He is known internationally among academics who specialise in similar topics.Resnjari (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , by the way, separate to the Ergo issue here, do you contest the other stuff that you reverted in Ktrimi's initial edit or do i place it back in the article as it is RS?Resnjari (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification. The native name thing in the infobox was not made by me but by actually. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I added it as per the outcome of the requested move (27 October 2015). – Βατο (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * your rewording here sounds good, I support it. Regarding Khirurg's removal of sourced content, I think it should be restored as per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. – Βατο (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Βατο. I reverted Khirurg's rv as it seems the other version has more support but discussion should continue in my opinion for further improvement. Cinadon36 23:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of it has been restored by Cinadon, but i removed the Ergo bit as that has not been worked out yet. I think when i'll a propsoal up, i'll start a new thread as this one has become toxic and veered off course.Resnjari (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A single publication in an international English language journal changes nothing. His publication record is very weak. I don't think he qualifies as WP:RS. Khirurg (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , from what i gather here we're basically talking about credentials here. On Ergo, he deals with niche topics that are not the focus of many scholars when it comes to the Balkans like Albania and religious conversion during the Ottoman period. I noted examples that shows he is taken seriously among his scholarly peers (who overlap in interests) who themselves have established strong academic reputations, as they work outside the Balkans. Schmitt is professor of South-East European history based in Vienna University and Giakoumis in an academic at the University of Birmingham and is their Research fellow at the Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek studies. Now the Ergo source for here meets the criteria of being a peer reviewed publication, i.e Bulgarian Historical Review (hence it meets WP:SECONDARY), and the article in question is in English. So far you have not produced something where Ergo comes under critique from other scholars questioning his work and so on. Now as I said in the above comments, this wiki article includes the positions of a whole host of people from a century ago or further. So if English publications are some kind of benchmark for this wiki article, it kind of becomes farcical that some of sources used for them are not in English, but are in Serbo-Croatian and from the 1970s. In the early 2000s, Ergo published his article in English in a peer reviewed journal that is neither Albanian nor Serbian or in those languages.Resnjari (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Another reliable source about the subject is Lucia Nadin Bassani (2002). Statuti di Scutari: della prima metà del secolo XIV con le addizioni fino al 1469. – Βατο (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Good find Βατο. Integrating the new source with the rest, it is:"According to Ergo in the 2003 edition of the Bulgarian historical review, the Balšići were among the few Albanian families that understood that the formation of an Albanian state meant the unification of Albanian lands. According to Alexandru Madgearu, Albanian historiography considers the attempt of the Balšić family to build a "Great Albania" that included Kosovo a first form of the unitary and centralized Albanian state. In his view, it was, like other medieval polities, the temporary result of some circumstances. Lucia Nadin Bassani states that Balsha was, before Skanderbeg, among the rare princes of Albania who attempted an unification of the Albanian lands. According to Bassani, the project did not presuppose the idea of ​​a homogeneous cultural and constitutional unity". Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Since there is no will to add or remove more material from Resnjari's proposed text, I agree to add it in the article. I am not against the three sources proposed by Resnjari Alexandru Madgearu Dritan Egro  and Lucia Bassani. Will we add it now? Who will add it? Will we add quotes in case someone cant access the sources?--Albert Falk (talk) 11:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We have to wait on a few other particpants which i pinged down below to comment as well so as to get an idea of where things stand.Resnjari (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed additions for the article
Borrowing from what @Ktrimi put up with my own tweaks, +in keeping with the sources, this is the proposed text (refs are in short form + brackets for now):

"According to Alexandru Madgearu, Albanian historiography interprets the efforts of the family to create a "Great Albania", that incorporated Kosovo, as early example of a centralised and united Albanian polity (Madgearu, p. 83 ). Instead in his view, the expansion of dominance by one family from the Albanian nobility arose due to an outcome of short-term conditions or state of affairs similar to other medieval states (Madgearu, p. 83). Dritan Egro writes that unlike most other Albanian nobility, the family had awareness that the formation of an Albanian polity entailed uniting Albanian areas spanning from Kosovo to the Ceraunian mountains (Egro, p. 167 ). According to Lucia Nadin Bassani, Balsha was, before Skanderbeg, among the rare princes of Albania who attempted to unify Albanian lands (Bassani, p. 14 ). She states that the project did not presuppose the idea of a homogeneous constitutional and cultural unity (Bassani, p. 14)."

Pinging all editors who either made recent edits over the past couple of days on the main page and/or talkpage:, , , , ,. Thoughts? Resnjari (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is very good. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Resnjari and Ktrimi991's proposals --Albert Falk (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Dritan Egro (not "Ergo") is not a reliable source. Khirurg (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * based on what and why? Evidence? Wiki guidelines? You got to base it on something substantive at least.Resnjari (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already told you: His publication record is paper-thin, most of it is not even peer-reviewed. If we lower the bar on sources to this level in Balkan articles, it will be chaos. By the way, you should start a proper RfC to get wider community input, instead of just pinging mostly your friends. Khirurg (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)F
 * You have presented nothing on the claim that his works are not peer reviewed. The source in question proposed to be a reference for content in the article was published in the Bulgarian Historical Review by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in 2002 and in English. I can go through the other places where Ergo has his works like in Albanian and Turkish journals published by national academies dealing with history and so on. He has internationally worked with colleagues like Schmitt and Giakoumis who share his similar niche interests. I'm starting to get this vibe that's its more about WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything else.Resnjari (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, Dritan Egro is a reliable source. As previously stated by Resnjari, he has published different academic works internationally renowned among scholars., your assumption is not based on any guideline. I agree with Resnjari's proposal. – Βατο (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Khirurg is trying to find excuses coz IDONTLIKEIT. These days at another article, EOKA, he was for having a whole sections based on some newspaper reports, while he was resisting inserting data from multiple historians. Not peer reviewed (newspaper) articles of course. D. Egro is a respectable academic researcher and has published several works on the field. Seems fine to me. Cinadon36 21:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:STALK, WP:BATTLE, WP:TEND. You can't even try to hide the fact that the only reason you followed me here is because you didn't have your way at EOKA. Khirurg (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Since Bassani is now present in the text, I do not have any big issue with not including Ergo. I support 's proposal more than I support the version without Ergo though. Since thinks that an academic whose works has been published by reliable publishers and has collaborated with known scholars should be excluded just by saying he has a "paper-thin publication record", I guess that many editors involved here will start looking at his future additions on Wikipedia more closely. His comments here are good diffs that can be used by anyone whenever he uses academics with "paper-thin publication record". It will practically be impossible for him to add any new content on Wikipedia. Frankly, I am starting to like Khirurg's idea. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Is that some kind of threat? Because it sure sounds like it to me. You shouldn't make threats Ktrimi. You really shouldn't. Because diffs can and will be stored, and used at the right time and place. Khirurg (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You should expect your reasoning will be applied to your future edits as well. No? I do not make threats. If I was rude, I would not turn a blind eye to some things we discussed on my talk page long ago. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * you say "it will be impossible for him to add material to wikipedia". How so? It sounds an awful lot like you are declaring that you will follow me around and revert me everywhere. Is that indeed so? You should not make threats like that. Khirurg (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC
 * , I said "practically impossible". Indeed, if everyone follows your rationale on Ergo, that is the result. To avoid content disputes, just do not add content sourced to writers with "paper-thin record". You know how to distinguish such sources, right? Re "threats", you can keep claiming that like a broken record. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , you edit a lot of Albanian related topics, so you appear on articles in my watchlist, so paths cross and its porbably similar with others. Calling it a "threat" is just WP:ASPERSIONS. If you really thought there was something, i suggest you follow it up with a report.Resnjari (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, unless @Khirurg can show evidence of other scholars critiquing Ergo, or that his work is really not peer reviewed, the talkpage is not about casting WP:ASPERSIONS or besmirching a scholar's reputation based on arguments out of thin air and no evidence.Resnjari (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think also if someone has something about the stance of Serbian histriography, it would be good as well to have some additional perspective.Resnjari (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As far as I can see the author in question is not particularly notable, if we take Google Scholar and other tools in consideration. A number of articles related to the Balkans and Balkan history (for example Old Serbia) is filled with both things which should be included and those which are irrelevant and interesting from other (not academic) angles. I do not think that the article would gain much from this entry. Furthermore, this is no way to start a discussion, pinging buddies and "interested editors".  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  21:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , you should retract your comment about "buddies". I only pinged people for the new thread who had made edits to the main page and the talkpage within the time span of a week. This involved people who I have had sharp disagreements in the past. Also, you were not involved in this page. If i pinged you, that would be WP:CANVASSING, no? Another thing, your comment is showing that you want to remove RS from other places as well. Recently you have been reverted on many pages for using similar reasons. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason. It appears more and more now that creative reasons outside the guidelines are being made to keep information out. Yet no one has produced actual evidence to back their claims about the academic like critiques from scholars and so on.Resnjari (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I plan to do no such thing as I did not mean it as an offence or anything of the sort. Plus, another editor made the same remark. Regardless, serious debates (and I guess that you intented to have one) should include invitations to editors from Wiki projects such as History, History of the Balkans etc. I am doing no such thing and have no intentions of doing it. If you are refering to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacres_of_Albanians_in_the_Balkan_Wars&diff=933181626&oldid=933172719&diffmode=source (which is completely irrelevant to the discussion and a weak attempt to discredit me), I stand by my edit and I still do not understand how someone of age does not understand the difference between actual events and a colorful description by the author. If Google scholar is not relevant I do not know what is. Of course, it is not the only tool, but the author was not promising to begin with. On the other hand, you wanted to discredit Dušan Bataković, an academic and expert, based on one or two critiques, and yet you do not have a problem with this or any other questionable authors. WP: ILIKEIT?  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  23:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , i looked at this thread and you’re the only one who made that claim about me and pinging. When i started the thread and pinged, i was upfront as to why that was. Also why would i include those projects immediately. I wanted to put up a proposal and to get initial comments from participants in here first. If there was still an impasse then RFC etc. As for diffs i am referring to things like this:, etc. Regarding Bataković other scholars have critiqued his work and noted certain works by him are nationalistic. Where is the evidence that Ergo is not RS or that the scholar is flawed.? It’s all I ask.Resnjari (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In order to be critiqued, a scholar has to publish. Batakovic has published dozens of articles, Egro hardly any. You can't possibly compare the two. Egro's publications on google scholar have been cited a grand total of...30 times, maybe . The worst fate that can befall a writer is not to be criticized, but to be ignored. Khirurg (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A scholar gets critiqued if there are problems with their work, otherwise why the critique, it would be nonexistent. With Batakovic, his works have been identified in peer reviewed literature as nationalistic (i.e Frederick Anscombe, p.761, ). You’re trying to present Ergo as some obscure person in international academia that no one outside the Balkans has heard of or worked with. As i said Ergo focuses on a niche topic area of the late medieval period + Ottoman period in Albania on things like religious conversions. Even in that context, international academics who share similar niche interests have published, collaborated with him and sought his advice for their works. Schmitt and Giakoumis are no back alleyway academics, if anything their works have taken to task Albanian, Greek and other Balkan historians for nationalistic gibberish. That said, Ergo is not one of them. Anyone can be a contrarian, but at a bare minimum have hard evidence to back up your position. So I say, produce hard evidence for your claims, instead of coming up with ad hoc criteria to omit Ergo. It’s the least you could do.Resnjari (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per WP:UNDUE because such addition would give undue weight to 19th century nationalistic mythology projected into medieval period and incorrect connection between blood and soil. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ugh, yuck. "Blood and Soil". Ergo, Madgearu and Bissani are not nationalists or fascists. Once again, commentary without evidence.Resnjari (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Fate of the Balšić/Balsha family
There is nothing in the article as to what happened to the family around the time of the Ottoman conquest. Did they survive, flee, intermarry, change religion? Who was the last recorded prominent member of the family? Are there any clans/tribes etc in Montenegro who ascribe a connection or origin from this family. Just curious and putting it out there. Maybe fellow editors familiar with the topic have come across something via WP:RS. It would be good to account for that too. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine seems to have good content on the Balsic family. Like you I too would like to know what happened with its members during the Ottoman period. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

They were Albanians
The family members were always described as Albanians and name of the family was always written Balsha. The ottoman sources show them as Albanians as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorzi Kastrioti (talk • contribs) 14:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Family Name
The whole disussion about the ethnicity of the family is obsolete and redundant since we do not have any records to prove any of the arguments. Hence, I will not bring any new arguments for this debate or argue in favor of one or another argument. Instead, I will take stand for another important thing: the spelling of the family name. The naming of this article "Balšić" suggests that an implicit position has been taken in the debate on ethnicity without referring to the debate or any historical sources. However, as far as I know, there is no records of the family in Albanian or Serbian, Montenegrin or any other slavic language. What we have is Latin and Italian records of the written family name and it is neither Balšić nor Ballsha. According to John Musachi it is "Balsichi", as he mentiones that Comita Musachi maries Colco (and not Gojko) Balsichi "il signor Colco Balsichi" in his "Breve memoria de li discendenti de nostra casa Musachi, pp. 284-5. ", which was published in 1515. Therefor, the title of this article should be named "Balsichi noble family" and all other articles regarding this family should be changed to "Balsichi". The Albanian and Slavic spelling of the name can still be written as it is now: "(Serbian Cyrillic: Балшић, pl. Balšići / Балшићи; also Bašići; Latin: Balsich; Albanian: Balsha)". Another option would be the Latin spelling "Balsich".

Source: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ALBANIA.htm#_ftn228 – Squatrazustradin (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Squatrazustradin