Talk:Voisava Kastrioti/Archive 2

The only work about Vojsava
Thanks to Zoupan we now have one (and for now the only) work (though rather short) which is solely dedicated to Vojsava:



This work also satisfies all criteria requested by RSN and RfC (only works of contemporary historians published in last 20 years) because it is written by contemporary historian Boban Petrovski. This work has been published in 2006, during the International scientific conference held in Skopje in 2005. and 2006. (Меѓународен научен собир по повод одбележувањето на 600-годишнината од раѓањето на Ѓерѓ Кастриоти Скендер-бег (1405-1468), Скопје, 25 и 26 ноември 2005, Скопје 2006.)

Both CV and Bibliography of Dr. Boban Petrovski show that he is specialized in Medieval Balkans History.

He wrote numerous works about Polog:
 * 1) Доцноантички / рановизантиски населби во Полог (6. век), Македонско наследство XII 34-35, Скопје 2009.
 * 2) Петровски Б., Локалната власт во средновековната жупа Полог: претставници и нивни ингеренции, ГЗФФ, книга 62, Скопје 2009.
 * 3) Петровски Б., Границите на доцноантичките провинции како детерминанти за културната историја (случајот со Полог). Антиката и европската култура, Прилози од научниот собир одржан по повод јубилејот 60 години Институт за класични студии, Скопје 2009.
 * 4) Петровски Б., Рефлексии од Третиот крстоносен поход врз Полог, ГЗФФ, книга 61, Скопје 2008.
 * 5) Петровски Б., Византиската управа во Полог по уништувањето на Самуиловата држава, Историја XLIV / 1-2, Скопје 2008.
 * 6) Петровски Б., “Жоупа полож`ка”, ГЗФФ, книга 60, Скопје 2007.
 * 7) Петровски Б., Средновековната историја и историографија во Македонија, ракурс кон освојувањето на Норманите и траењето на нивната власт во Полог. Прилози од меѓународната конференција „Историја, историографија и наставата по историја” одржана од 21-23 ноември 2007 година во Скопје, Скопје 2007
 * 8) Петровски Б., Манастирски имоти во средновековен Полог, ГЗФФ, книга 59, Скопје 2006.
 * 9) Петровски Б.-Софрониевски В., Синодалниот акт No. 94 од збирката на Хоматијан како извор за историјата на Полог, Историја XLI / 1-2, Скопје 2005.
 * 10) Петровски Б., Односот на населението и локалните власти од Северозападна Македонија (Полог и Скопје) кон норманските “варвари” и “цивилизираните” Византијци за време на византиско-норманската војна 1081-1085 година, Епохи-Историческо списание на Великотърновския университет “Св. св. Кирил и Методи”, Книжка 1-2, година XI, MMIII, Велико Търново 2005.
 * 11) Петровски Б.-Софрониевски В., Документите No. 58 и No. 103 од збирката на Хоматијан како извор за историјата на Полог, ГЗФФ, книга 58, Скопје 2005.

Based on the above arguments, I think we can conclude that Dr. Boban Petrovski is credible scholar, whose work are very valuable for this article. Therefore I propose: --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * to include his above mentioned work about Vojsava in "Further reading" section.
 * to include informations he wrote about Vojsava into the text of the article. I mean on informations that she married her husband in 1390's that she was 12—16 (which means she was born around 1376, that Polog was controlled by Branković family when she was born...)
 * Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:RS. You can go to RSN and ask if the makedonika blog is RS too. Btw since you consider makedonika RS, you should consider adding on Macedonia-related articles another work they published Arguments for the Undying Saga od Ancient Macedonia. -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell (note that I cannot understand Macedonian), this is not a blog post but an academic paper which was researched, written, published, and presented by a legitimate historian. I do not know what it says, but surely it should not be dismissed so quickly, especially as it appears to be unusual in its direct treatment of Vojsava. Antidiskriminator, would you mind expanding on what this paper says and what makes it a reliable source, preferably in English? Take as much time as you need. Thanks, A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw while doing that please explain why someone who has a degree in philosophy and whose work is published in a website like makedonika is a reliable source for this subject. Also please explain why although his studies aren't related to geopolitics he writes papers like Macedonia and its neighbours. He has also served as the editor-in-shief of the Macedonian Historical Review. Why should someone who has been responsible about such a paper be considered a reliable source? Antid. you should also provide a translation of the pdf or a summary of, since most can't understand it.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The above questions apply also for the various Hodgkinsons and Kristo Frasheris. Can I have answers please?--Euzen (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The work you're asking questions about was also co-written by David Abulafia of Cambridge i.e RS.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @ZjarriRrethues: It is not true that he has a degree in philosophy. The CV I presented above is on English. It clearly says that he finished his education, postraduate and doctoral studies at the Faculty of Philosophy, precisely it's Department of History. Here you can see that his average grade was 9,88 and that his Doctor of Philosophy thesis was “Polog in the Middle Ages (sixth-fourteenth century). Let me remind you that "The term "philosophy" does not refer solely to the modern field of philosophy, but is used in a broader sense in accordance with its original Greek meaning, which is "love of wisdom".)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How is his grade related to his reliability as a scholar?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Expanding on what this paper says and what makes it a reliable source
This paper says that Vojsava was nobility, member of Brankovići (daughter of Grgur Branković or Vuk Branković) and of Serbian ethnicity.

I believe that this work is reliable source because the author is contemporary historian, authoritative in relation to the subject, whose work, published at the International scientific conference held in Skopje, is supported with numerous sources and later researches.

I - What this paper says?

This work explains Vojsava’s :


 * 1) social status: Author concluded, based on all available sources, that Vojsava was nobility, daughter of the lord of Polog who ruled over Triballi (Slavs in Macedonia) before Polog fell under the Ottoman control. :
 * 2) family: Author researched all existing significant sources about Vojsava and Polog and found out that lord of Polog and possible father of Vojsava was one of these three men: Grgur Branković, his brother Vuk Branković or кесар Grgur. Author analyzed all sources about medieval Polog and concluded that Polog was probably under control of Brankovići. Based on that conclusion author presented his opinion that Vojsava was member of Brankovići, and that Vojsava’s father was either Grgur Branković or his brother Vuk Branković. In case that Vojsava's father was Grgur (either Branković or Grgur (кесар Гргур), then the name of Vojsava's mother was Todora.
 * 3) ethnicity: At the beginning of his work Petrovski stated that science community determined her first name (Vojsava) and general origin (Slavic) noting in the footnote that there is opinion in the part of the western historiography that Vojsava was probably of Serbian origin. At the end of his work, author presented his opinion which is result of his research: regardless of who of above mentioned three men was the father of Vojsava, lexeme Tribalda shows Vojsava's ethnicity and in case her father was кесар Grgur, that lexeme could also show her citizenship, precisely that of Serbian medieval state.

II - What makes it a reliable source?

I believe that this work is reliable source because the author is contemporary historian, authoritative in relation to the subject. His work could not be more supported with the sources, written by 60 different authors. . This work was published at the International scientific conference held in Skopje in 2005. and 2006 regarding the 600 years from the birth of Skanderbeg. This conference was attended by numerous scholars, some of them from Albania and Kosovo. Additionally, later research of Oliver Jens Schmitt and comments of Momčilo Spremić confirmed the author's opinion that Vojsava was member of Brankovići.

III - Detailed analysis of the two possible identities of Grgur: Grgur Branković or кесар Grgur

In his work author explained details about two different positions in historical science about the identity of the Grgur who was undisputed ruler of Polog, in period 1366—1371 at least. :


 * 1) One position is that Grgur, lord of Polog, was not Grgur Branković, but another person, relatively unknown in historiography, кесар Grgur, who remained loyal to Prince Marko after the death of Vukašin Mrnjavčević in September 1371 and Stephen Uroš V of Serbia in December 1371. According to this position, there are two versions what happened in 1376/1377:
 * 2) One is that Vuk Branković took away control over Polog from кесар Grgur in 1376/1377, if not earlier. According to this position, Vuk Branković was lord of Polog until it fell under the Ottoman control about 15 years later, when he also lost Skopje to Ottomans.
 * 3) Second is that кесар Grgur as vassal of Prince Marko controlled Polog until it fell under direct Ottoman control in 1395, because Prince Marko died.
 * 4) Another position is that Grgur, lord of Polog, was in fact Grgur Branković, son of Branko Mladenović and brother of Vuk Branković. According to this position it is very likely that Grgur rejected the rule of Prince Marko when his father, Vukašin Mrnjavčević was killed in 1371 and northern lands of Prince Marko were conquered by husband of Marko's sister, Đurađ I Balšić, together with Nikola Altomanović and Lazar Hrebeljanović.

Boban Petrovski supported the latter position, despite the fact that no authentic medieval sources show that Vojsava was member of Brankovići family. He explained his opinion with newly established constellation of forces in 1376/1377, when Vuk Branković, most probably supported by Lazar Hrebeljanović, gained control over Skopje. Based on the explained military and political context, the author concluded that it is very likely that Grgur Branković rejected the rule of Prince Marko, with support of Vuk Branković. That rejection was perhaps a prerequisite for Vuk's conquest of Skopje. Author also supported this position with the ages of Vuk Branković, Grgur Branković  and Vojsava too.

References

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So Petrovski is not basing his theory on any medieval sources as you say and of course his whole work is a PhD thesis.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. Petrovski used in his research all existing medieval sources about Vojsava. Two out of three statements are directly supported by medieval sources also (his statements about Vojsava's social status (nobility) and ethnicity (Serbian)).
 * Petrovski's PhD thesis is “Polog in the Middle Ages (sixth-fourteenth century)", not this work.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Boban Petrovski supported the latter position, despite the fact that no authentic medieval sources show that Vojsava was member of Brankovići family. i.e he's not basing his theory about her on any medieval sources.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Look Antid, Brankovic family had well-known links to Albanian lords of that time and was well known among Albanians before and after Skanderbeg period eg Gjergj Thopia was married to Teodora Branković, Stefan Branković married Angjelina Arianit Komneni, daughter of Albanian lord Gjergj Arianit Komneni, Skanderbeg son John Kastrioti was married to Jerina Branković, daughter of Lazar Branković etc, but note that none of Skanderbeg biographers has claimed that Scanderbeg mother was a Branković, not Barletius, not Francus, not Muzaka. Not one of medieval sources (Venice, Hungarian, Ragusian, Papal, Aragonese, and even Serb) of the period (and even latter) claim that. There should be e very good reason for that silence.


 * P.S. I remember reading somewhere (probably Noli) the interpretation that probably she was not of such a high social status. In the end the father of Skanderbeg was not an influential person at the time of his marriage and appears on the sources only in 1407, after Skanderbeg (his last of four sons but probably other daughters were between) was born. Muzaka chronicle is right in claiming that he had originally only two villages in his domain, because he is virtually unknown up to 1407, so not worthy of marrying noble figures. Yes he became a local figure and ruler but long after (probably all) his kids were born. That explains why his biographers while addressing him as Lord, are vague on descriptions of his wife Vojsava. Barletius faithful to his panegyric makes her a princess, with high virtues, which sees a dream with a dragoon before giving birth to Scanderbeg etc, but please note that Gjon Muzaka which was himself a noble and is very careful with family links, noble blood and genealogies, says only that she came from a good family and was related to Muzaka. Aigest (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Antidiskriminator. Allow me a bit of time to review all of this material. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Take as much time as you need.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I am glad to see that some users appreciate Musachi's chronicle as a reliable source. I have a copy of the book and I can edit the relevant articles accordingly. It seems that some editors do not have access to the original or they prefer selective use of it. Thus:

From the Musachi's Chronicle, published by CharlesHopf in Chroniques Greco-Romanes, Berlin, 1873.: Regarding Andronica (not "Donica"): p. 291. "E di bisogno notificare, ..., che la Signora Scanderbega, il suo proprio nome era Andronica de casa Comninata o vero Comnino, ma per il nome del marito se chiama Scanderbega. E questa m' era consobrina carnale de mio padre quale fu maritata col Signor Arainit (sic) Comnino, e cossi me vene consobrina carnale, nati de fratello e sorella. "

p. 278. " Del vero dicono la nostra progenie procede dalla citta de Costantinopoli, e vennero a dominare in Albania l' Epiro. ".

That is, Musachi is proud of his bloood relation with the Royal House of Comnenos, originally from Asia Minor, and states that his ancestors came from Constantinople to Albania.

Who is Albanian then? --Euzen (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, you are inviting a topic which is not within the scope of this article.
 * Anyway, Andronica was from the Arianiti family, not the Musachi. Her great-great-grandmother was from the Comneneos dynasty.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've read through all of this, and I think Petrovski's opinion should be included in the article. This source seems to be a legitimate scholarly article, and those arguing that it shouldn't be used seem to be saying that the problem is that Petrovski is wrong. This presupposes that we'd be presenting Petrovski's opinion as fact. That's not the case. Instead, we'd be presenting it as one historian's opinion, not as the scholarly consensus on the subject. It would probably be best to have a whole section discussing different historians' opinions on the question of Vojsava's ethnicity. Thoughts? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've read through all of this, and I think Petrovski's opinion should Not be included in the article. This source didn't seemed to be a legitimate scholarly article, and those arguing that it should be used seem to be saying that the problem is that Petrovski is right. --Vinie007 16:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * School example of the trolling comment... -- WhiteWriter speaks 21:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I myself take no position as to whether Petrovski is wrong or right. Vinie007, would you mind providing an explanation of why you believe this is not a legitimate scholarly article? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @ASW: I agree with the attribution of the view to Petrovski if this is included, so a According to... will solve it. However, I don't know if his view should be as equally possible to that of the Hodgkinson-Abulafia work.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I ✅ with A Stop at Willoughby opinion. Petrovski is very clear and legitimate source, that represent part of the misty life of this person. -- WhiteWriter speaks 21:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you A Stop at Willoughby. I agree with all of your proposals.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sprinkling a pinch of "Abulafia" in the discussion does not alter Hodgkinson's image as a non-expert overtly pro-Albanian author. I don't see in the references of the article any Abulafia's work. Any way, articles are not a place for comparisons between authors. ALL views should be reflected in an article. --Euzen (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This page has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. I am not auto-confirmed user, if I am not wrong. Will some auto-confirmed user follow the consensus and perform edits to follow the proposal of A Stop at Willoughby?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just write down in here final version, i will include it. -- WhiteWriter speaks 13:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I just now realised what auto-confirmed means (accounts that are both more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed). If I understood it correctly I think I meet the criteria for auto-confirmed users and therefore I will soon perform edits to follow the proposal of A Stop at Willoughby.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I created section for presenting "different historians' opinions on the question of Vojsava's ethnicity". At the beginning I clearly stated that historians have different opinion about her ethnicity. Then I included Petrovski's opinion about her Serbian ethnicity presented "as one historian's opinion, not as the scholarly consensus on the subject". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are more contemporary historians who researched Vojsava's ethnicity and published their opinion in their work published in last 20 years please add such information in the section about Vojsava's ethnicity.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)Boban Petrovski is the scientific community? Please read WP:POV. Btw why didn't Abulafia and Hodgkinson? A professor of the University of Cambridge belongs to RS and wasn't that Bulgarian author you added refuted on the past discussions?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hodgkinson is not historian, and he did not publish his work in last 20 years. I will repeat what I wrote in my above comment: If there are more contemporary historians who researched Vojsava's ethnicity and published their opinion in their work published in last 20 years please add such information in the section about Vojsava's ethnicity. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Abulafia wrote intro of the book of Hodkinson. If Abulafia researched Vojsava's ethnicity, please be so kind to present his work and quote of Abulafia's opinion about Vojsava's ethnicity.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You were right about Bulgarian historian. There was one user who wrote that her opinion might be synth, and I deleted information based on that source. Thanks for good observation. She is the only contemporary historian that I know who did not support her Serbian origin, and that was the reason why I included her.
 * Does anybody knows any contemporary historian who published his work in last 20 years and wrote his opinion about Vojsava's ethnicity other than Serbian?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I added all the reliable ones and btw her work isn't just WP:SYNTH but a blatant mirepresentation of sources. She claims that the quote she found on an anonymous work verifies the Bulgarian claim, but the work isn't anonymous(google books) and except for Polog being labeled as a region of Bulgaria, there's nothing about Vojsava herself. As for attribution of authorship: every book is a collective effort. When many scholars write a book together they don't just assign tasks without checking and verifying what the rest wrote. Btw don't add so many ref parameters that won't be used.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We reached consensus to create section presenting "different historians' opinions on the question of Vojsava's ethnicity". You violated that consensus and added opinions of non-historian Hodgkinson. You also violated RSN and RfC which requested that we should use only works of contemporary historians published in last 20 years. Will you please be so kind to explain why you used RSN and RfC to remove only sources about her Slav origin and you ignored RSN and RfC in case of sources about her non-Slavic origin?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The latest RSN about Noli, Hodgkinson etc. i.e Hodgkinson etc. are RS.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 14:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * RfC: : ZZ: So far as I can see, while you are quite willing to criticise everyone else's proposed sources, you seem to be treating Fan Noli as totally reliable. Sorry, no - he was a trained historian, but his work is over sixty years old and he was in part writing as an Albanian deliberately trying to correct previous misrepresentations of Albanian history. Sometimes, probably without meaning to, he seems to have overcorrected. So I have as many misgivings about Fan Noli on this particular topic as about WW's sources.So, please - for sourcing this, use more modern scholarly sources (preferably from the last 20 years). They are far more likely to represent general current understanding.
 * RSN:During RSN it was explained that for establishing Vojsava's ethnicity:
 * works from modern historians are much preferred in general
 * that use of primary sources directly, rather than through the eyes of a trained historian, is very ill advised.
 * that we should not use sources which are attributing the statement to others.
 * @ZjarriRrethues: In your edit you:
 * did not respect the consensus reached on this talk page which was to create "a whole section discussing different historians' opinions on the question of Vojsava's ethnicity." and you added informations which are not opinion of different historians.
 * did not respect RSN: and used works which are not works of modern historians, like Harry Hodkginson who was not historian or Fan Noli who is not contemporary historian.
 * did not respect RfC: you used work of Fan Noli despite the fact that it was clearly stated that he is not acceptable source (: ZZ: So far as I can see, while you are quite willing to criticise everyone else's proposed sources, you seem to be treating Fan Noli as totally reliable. Sorry, no - he was a trained historian, but his work is over sixty years old and he was in part writing as an Albanian deliberately trying to correct previous misrepresentations of Albanian history. Sometimes, probably without meaning to, he seems to have overcorrected. So I have as many misgivings about Fan Noli on this particular topic as about WW's sources.So, please - for sourcing this, use more modern scholarly sources (preferably from the last 20 years). They are far more likely to represent general current understanding.)
 * did not respect RSN: you used primary works of Gjon Muzaka despite it was explained that use of the primary sources ''directly, rather than through the eyes of a trained historian, is very ill advised
 * you did not respect RSN because even the provided sources (Hodgkinson or Noli) did not present their opinion, but they were attributing the statement to others (Muzaka) although it was explained on RSN that we should not use such sources.
 * Additionally, you misinterpreted the sources and presented information written by Hodgkinson (who during his career supported the Albanian cause and took up strong anti-Serb and anti-Bulgarian positions) as opinion of David Abulafia who only wrote an intro to Hodkinson's book.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The RSN you referred to never concluded that "Hodgkinson etc. are RS." Let me cite the conclusion of the RSN you referred to: Now... where did I leave that ten foot pole?....I think what is required is a fifteen foot.... --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Antid read the latest RSN(And looking at the other sources ... they all seem reliable to me. Again, is there a reason you question them?) about Hodgkinson and Noli i.e please stick to it. Btw haven't you already started another refuted section(by Andrew Lancaster) about Hodgkinson? You have been refuted twice already i.e please stick to both RSNs.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Zjarri, your edits are violation of consensus. Please, first you have to gain agreement for those edits. -- WhiteWriter speaks 15:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not violating any consensus because you have been already refuted about Noli and Hodgkinson twice and there is no source claiming anything about scientific consensus which is a blatant POV and OR.--15:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry, but did you even read discussion from above? -- WhiteWriter speaks 15:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stick to the RSNs and don't attribute OR to any source (i.e scientific consensus).-- — ZjarriRrethues'' — talk 15:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Zjarri, read discussion from above! You didnt read it. See Antidskriminator's Detailed analysis/rationale box. I dont know what are you talking above, we have consensus for this version. -- WhiteWriter speaks 15:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Antid has made the same comments over and over again and two RSNs are in favour of adding the sources. Btw we agreed to add Petrovski's view(which nobody removed) and all other views and not about Antid's OR of scientific consensus.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with Zjarri. Please do not manipulate this story WhiteWriters and Antidiskriminator! No consensus was reached about this part! --Vinie007 15:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which part? :) If you write unsupported, trolling comments despite useful arguments and agreements, that still doesn't mean that we dont have consensus. Read posts from above. And you are welcome to start normal discussion, without trolling and sabotage. As you may see, we are moving from the starting point. This version of the article is by far better than older ones we had. It is moving toward neutral article, but its not yet there. Also, that sentence you included is misinterpretation of the source, as Noli nowhere personally presented that opinion in that book. -- WhiteWriter speaks 17:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No "consensus" is needed if we simply stick to WP rule that "all views should be reflected in an article". Although the Albanian writers and Hodginson are not reliable on subjects that are crucial for the Albanian National Myth, their inclusion would do no harm to the article. But excluding the mainstream view that Vojasava was Serbian would turn the article to a farce. I propose a list of primary, secondary and modern sources, like in the Skanderbeg article.--Euzen (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is you who is turning the work of a well-regarded scholar (Fan Noli) into farce. WP:RS says "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community..." Fan Noli's work is a PhD thesis which was reviewed by the staff of the University of Boston, one of the best universities in America. (And do we need to add that Noli was also a Harvard graduate?) Relegating him to "just another Albanian scholar" is very bad faith on your part. Furthermore, Noli bases his statement off what Muzaka says, not off his own opinion.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ with Euzen. Instead of that stupidity that tons of sources are not good for the article, list will do the job. -- WhiteWriter speaks 19:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per both RSNs Noli and Hodgkinson are RS and WW please stick to the consensus about the sources. Btw if you don't cite the science community sentence you reverted I'll add back the sourced and npov version.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont know what are you talking about. science community sentence is pointless, sorry. If you ask again what do you want me to swhow you, i might help. What science community? Where? And if you revert again, despite agreement and conversation on talk page, i will report you. Simple as that. Your slow motion edit warring is out of order for a quite some time. -- WhiteWriter speaks 19:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooo, i found it! But that is not mine, Antidiskriminator add it, not me. It is obvious per all sources presented, but we may use source for that. I will tag for fact, and antidiskriminator should add source he used. -- WhiteWriter speaks 20:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Because Vojsava was not subject of satisfactory interest of scientific community her genealogy ended with her general Slavic origin.


 * That's not what Antid. claimed about scientific communities etc. and is Petrovski's view.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, Abulafia only wrote the introduction to the book by Hodgkinson. Am I correct in understanding that the parts of this source being used for to support text in this article were not part of that introduction? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fan Noli is misinterpreted by Zjarri. As Gaius told above: "Noli bases his statement off what Muzaka says, not off his own opinion", therefor, as we already have Muzaka, Noli is just doubled in here. We don't have Noli's personal opinion in this article, we have only his citing of the Muzaka statement. Also, Babinger, Franz is not about Vojsava, but Noli, and should be deleted from this article. This version IS NOT the best and most comprehensive. Very, very awful editing habits by several editor in here. -- WhiteWriter speaks 20:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WW Noli's view is attributed to him regardless of his source. On the other hand Petrovski's view isn't based on any source and yet he was added per NPOV i.e please attribute views as the rest of the editors. Babinger is about Noli and I added the same minor info about Petrovski too. @StopAtWilloughby: All the people involved in the collective support the same views(actually you can find that on every author's contract with his publishing house regarding collective works), but if think that's a bit OR I can change the sentece to in the work written by names etc. This is derailing again to minor details: WW if you make any other edits please don't add again the science community misrepresentation of Antid.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @ZjarriRrethues: I will repeat my question that you ignored:
 * Will you please be so kind and take look at the text of the article. Noli is used to reference information that Vojsava "was a princess from a family of Upper Polog". Then you used the same work of Noli (note 33) to support your claim that Noli ;considers her a member of the Muzaka family" although Muzaka family never lived in Polog. Also, the link you provided does not support the text in the article (Fan Noli, ... considers her a member of the Muzaka family). That link shows a note (number 33) which says: “Muzaka na thotë se Vojsava ishte shqiptare nga familija e Muzakajve.”. Will you please be so kind to translate this sentence?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed that ZjarriRrethues did not reply to my question to translate one short sentence that he referenced in the text of the article. Since he did not reply I wrote him a message on his talk page. Because it is connected with this article, please find below the text of the message I wrote to him:
 * I kindly remind you that I asked you three times on the Talk:Vojsava Tripalda to help us and translate one sentence:
 * diff That link shows a note (number 33) which says: “Muzaka na thotë se Vojsava ishte shqiptare nga familija e Muzakajve.”. Will you please be so kind to translate this sentence?
 * diff That link shows a note (number 33) which says: “Muzaka na thotë se Vojsava ishte shqiptare nga familija e Muzakajve.”. Will you please be so kind to translate this sentence?
 * diff I will resume the questions that you ZjarriRrethues did not reply:... translation of one short sentence on Albanian language...


 * In case that you did not see my questions I repeated them here. Please be so kind to help us and write translation of above mentioned short sentence (“Muzaka na thotë se Vojsava ishte shqiptare nga familija e Muzakajve.”) on the Talk:Vojsava Tripalda--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Link's required
Well, i ask Zjarri and Gaius for 3 things, and 3 quotes. Many months ago Antidiskriminator asked for this, and we dont have answers yet. I will copy paste those questions.


 * 1) Gjon Muzaka. Can you provide information about the book written by Muzaka and quote of his claim that Vojsava was Albanian?


 * 1) Harry Hodgkinson. In the quote Harry Hodgkinson says: "She [Voisava] seems to have belonged to the Musachi" but he do not claim she is Albanian, so this may be SYNTH. Are you able to provide details of the work and quote with claim that Vojsava was Albanian? Here is a link that contains information that David Abulafia only wrote the introduction to this book, not the text of the book with the claim that Vojsava was Albanian. The text of the book was written by Harry Hodgkinson, who was not historian. He was British intelligence officer famous for his Anti-Serbian attitude. If I am wrong, please provide a quote written by David Abulafia that Vojsava was Albanian?


 * 1) Fan Noli: In the provided link Noli wrote about what Hopf, Musachi and Barletius wrote about her. Will you please provide a quote with Noli's claim that she was Albanian?

After those 3 answers and link's, i will agree that this version is the most neutral and the best one. With this false misinterpretation of the quotes, i cannot agree on that. So, diff's please. -- WhiteWriter speaks 21:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already explained about the Abulafia issue above and can make the change I proposed if you think that it's OR to attribute it. There's no OR about Noli, Hodgkinson etc. because I attributed their views as stated in their works i.e I merely wrote Muzaka family and not Albanian Muzaka family. Of course if someone wants to find out more about the Muzaka family he can read the article. As for the RS I already linked to two RSNs.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Link's please. 3 link's, with 3 sentences. -- WhiteWriter speaks 21:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * the snippet on the English version just says 1 match found so read the Albanian version and btw please read WP:OBVIOUS. I'll continue tomorrow if in the meantime nobody else has added the rest.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that link ZjarriRrethues. Is it a footnote reference of the following text written by Noli: He married Voisava Tripalda of Polog,(33) who bore him four sons and five daughters. George, the youngest of his sons, became famous under the Turkish surname of Scanderbeg, but we know very little about the three others.? If it is, why did you use footnote reference which explains what other people (like Karl Hopf, Gjon Muzaka or Marin Barleti) wrote instead of the text written by Fan Noli? Is it mistake or it is because Muzaka family lived in Berat, not Polog?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Muzaka family had its capital at Berat, but they didn't exclusively live in Berat. I don't know if its a footnote of that sentence since the Albanian version is 322 pages, while the English one has 240 pages. WW has already added the quotes of Hodgkinson and regarding his SYNTH comments: There's no OR Hodgkinson etc. because I attributed their views as stated in their works i.e I merely wrote Muzaka family and not Albanian Muzaka family.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @ZjarriRrethues: Will you please be so kind and take look at the text of the article. Noli is used to reference information that Vojsava "was a princess from a family of Upper Polog". Then you used the same work of Noli (note 33) to support your claim that Noli ;considers her a member of the Muzaka family" although Muzaka family never lived in Polog. Also, the link you provided does not support the text in the article (Fan Noli, ... considers her a member of the Muzaka family). That link shows a note (number 33) which says: “Muzaka na thotë se Vojsava ishte shqiptare nga familija e Muzakajve.”. Will you please be so kind to translate this sentence?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently, Antid accused me of bad faith at a time when I was busy (and I told him I would be) for supposedly not responding to his question even though I did. Anyway, here goes:
 * This is the link to Carl Hopf's compilation of primary sources (ie. Hopf himself did not write it). On page 308, we can see Musachi linking Voisava to his family.
 * The rest are already given.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Gaius Claudius Nero. When you decided to bring back version of text written by ZjarriRrethues you participated in the ignoring the consensus, RSN and RfC as explained in detailed analysis above. Please be so kind to respect consensus, RSN and RfC when editing this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Where's the consensus?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the two RSNs according to which they're RS? In fact on your own RSN Andrew Lancaster explained why it's reliable and at that time you didn't object him so why are you trying again to remove the source with similar arguments? Btw you're quoting different pages and attributing SYNTH to them.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I will reply to all your questions:
 * 1 - Do you mean the two RSNs according to which they're RS?
 * No. I provided a link to the RSN I referred to. That is RSN discussion about using sources in the article about Vojsava, the same RSN that you used to discredit numerous sources which do not support your POV.The first RSN discussion you mentioned was about using HH work in Skanderbeg article, not article about Vojsava. That RSN is older then RSN I referred to, was not contextualized with Vojsava and was closed with no consensus reached. The second RSN you referred to never concluded that "Hodgkinson etc. are RS." I will again cite the conclusion of that RSN: Now... where did I leave that ten foot pole?....I think what is required is a fifteen foot....
 * That means that you misinterpreted the result of those RSN discussions when you wrote that according to those RSNs "they are RS". Please do not misinterpret RSN discussions anymore because someone could see your misinterpretations as tendentious editing.
 * 2- In fact on your own RSN Andrew Lancaster explained why it's reliable and at that time you didn't object him so why are you trying again to remove the source with similar arguments?
 * You choose to refer to that RSN and to the opinion of Andrew Lancaster only, but not to opinion of other participants in the discussion about Harry Hodgkinson like User:Ning-ning (I wouldn't consider it as an RS.) or User:Itsmejudith (For history articles we should use the work of mainstream academic historians.). Choosing opinion of only one participant can mislead other users that there was consensus that HH is RS. Someone could see it as tendentious editing.
 * 3 - Btw you're quoting different pages and attributing SYNTH to them.
 * No, I am not attributing SYNTH to different pages. Someone could see accusing other users for something they did not do as disruptive tendentious editing. I did not attribute SYNTH to the different pages. On the contrary, I asked you (diff) for help and to explain if note number 33 (“Muzaka na thotë se Vojsava ishte shqiptare nga familija e Muzakajve.”) which you referenced as source in the text of the article is a note number "(33) of the following text written by Noli: "He married Voisava Tripalda of Polog,33 who bore him four sons and five daughters." You replied (diff) "I don't know if its a footnote of that sentence ... " because Albanian and English edition of Noli's book have different number of pages.''
 * Let me remind you that we are talking about the work you used to support the information you wrote in the article. Please focus on the text not on the page number and explain: Does page with note number 33 (which says: “Muzaka na thotë se Vojsava ishte shqiptare nga familija e Muzakajve.”) contain the following text written by Noli: He married Voisava Tripalda of Polog,(33) who bore him four sons and five daughters. whether it is on Albanian or English language?


 * I will resume the questions that you ZjarriRrethues did not reply:
 * translation of one short sentence on Albanian language and
 * the explanation about the note 33.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Gaius Claudius Nero. You wrote that: "Kristo Frashëri...says she's Albanian", "Harry Hodgkinson...says she's Albanian", "Fan Noli says she's Albanian"... I asked you many times, first time more than a month ago (April 9th) to clarify your claims and to provide details (works and quotations) which prove your claims that Frasheri, Hodgkinson and Noli said that “she's Albanian”. Without SYNTH (without quotes about what some other people said).
 * I did not accuse you for bad faith. I noticed that in the meantime you were online, that you edited this article (diff) and its talk page (diff, diff) and many other articles and talk pages (more than 250 edits). That was the reason why I reminded you that you should take care about One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors.
 * Till now, you only provided quotes about Muzaka claiming Vojsava being member of Muzaka.
 * Let me ask you one simple question and please let us have your honest (and soon) answer: Are you able to support your claims that Frasheri, Hodgkinson and Noli said that “she's Albanian”? If you are, please do so. If not, please admit it. I promise I will not report your misinterpretations.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And I asked for an answer to my question, not another accusation and a threat to report me. There's no room for recriminations here.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Antid and WhiteWriter, please stop making useless accusations: there hasn't been any consensus on this: All I see is you two bickering about a useless fringe theory of a Macedonian scholar, who bases his claims on nothing, unless you two can show otherwise. --Doktor Plumbi (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Antid. the search doesn't show you which page uses that footnote, but the frequency of the word. Btw the quote from Hodgkinson's work was added by WW and there's no misrepresentation.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As none added links, as i asked kindly, i will reverted to the status quo version, without section in question, and after we agree here, we will include that section also... -- WhiteWriter speaks 18:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We agreed to include Petrovski's opinion, everything is sourced, two RSNs are enough for the RS and if you add back the science community OR POV it'll be disruptive. Btw you have all the links for all views so what exactly are you trying to find? Even the one for Muzaka has been added twice during this discussion i.e all views have been attributed. If you want to reword some of the content then that's a debatable issue but as long as everything is sourced in the current version that's the issue.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, now i have a proof that you don't even read posts by others, and just constantly repeat your POV. Did you even see link with status quo spot? It is in the blue link in my post above... :) -- WhiteWriter speaks 19:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And as we agreed to attribute the views and not dichotomize them this is the current status quo version as you called it.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this peace of ... art that we have in article now is definitely not status quo, as few users told you. It you dont like status quo sentence, then it will be reverted to the status quo ante. You didn't add ANY relevant link, as none of those sentences in the article are not presented in the sources. Noli and Harry Hodgkinson and David Abulafia didnt told ANYTHING about their PERSONAL OPINION regarding that data. I DON'T DISPUTE SOURCES, but only their usage in this sentences. Sorry for caps lock, i just wanted to point it out clearly... -- WhiteWriter speaks 20:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposition for the section in question

 == Ethnicity == 

Historians have different opinions about her ethnicity. Macedonian historian Boban Petrovski, an associate professor of the University of Skopje, supports an opinion of the part of western historiography that her ethnicity is Serbian from the House of Brankovic. According to the Muzaka Chronicle written by Gjon Muzaka, she was a member of the Muzaka family.

Now, what next? More sources? Which order? What is your proposition? -- WhiteWriter speaks 20:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We agreed to add all views and that was completed. There's no SYNTH, which has been your point throughout the discussion as all that is stated in the article is Muzaka family per the sources and the section can't get more comprehensive so only the wording is debatable. So what part of the wording do you think that should be changed(make a full list, you have enough time as I'll reply after c. 10 hours)?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, as wording should be changed, we will remove wrong version until we agree. -- WhiteWriter speaks 20:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted, one last time on this page, Vinnie, as he/she just blindly reverted without ANY writings on talk page. In this situation, this may be understood as vandalism. Please, Zjarri, translate us the sentence above user Antidiskriminator asked. Thanks in advance! I hope that we will be able to address this subject, without reverts and sabotage. Just talk people! Why is that such a problem! Users and not satisfied with current version, lets fix it, in peace and good humor! Without WWI trench fighting... -- WhiteWriter speaks 10:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Revert the removing of sources by whitewriter --Vinie007 11:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @WW: So far you're the only who's been reverting that version and the sentence means From Muzaka we learn that/Muzaka informs us that she was Albanian from the Muzaka family. Btw why didn't you include Hodgkinson etc. in this draft?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Vojsava Tripalda?
Why is the article's name "Tripalda"? There is no explanation.

Since we've already ascertained that that means "Vojsava of the Serbs/Triballians", there would be same sense to call the article "Vojsava Serbianna". :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.242.173 (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Stefan Stres Balsha
Who on Earth is Stefan Stres Balsha? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVNOJist (talk • contribs) 17:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Stuck
3O


 * From Muzaka we learn that/Muzaka informs us that she was Albanian from the Muzaka family. That is how ZjarriRrethues translated above mentioned sentence.
 * Musachi tells us that Voisava was Albanian from the Musachi family. That is how this sentence is translated in text of the work.
 *  Fan Noli,....considers her a member of the Muzaka family... That is the text ZjarriRrethues wrote based on above mentioned sentence.

I asked ZjarriRrethues for his translation more than once (diff, diff, diff, diff and diff) because I wanted to give him a chance to realise his mistake and misinterpretation of the source.

I already explained to ZjarriRrethues that:
 * in the same work Noli directly stated that Vojsava "was a princess from a family of Upper Polog" (which could not be Muzaka family because Polog is more than 300km away from Berat, a seat of Muzachi family who never controled Polog or lived in it)
 * note 33 contains Noli's explanation about what Muzaka, Hopf and Barletius said about Vojsava's family, not his opinion
 * based on the RSN we should use only works preferably written in past 20 years by contemporary historians who directly supported claim about Vojsava's ethnicity or family, not SYNTH of citing what other people said (Noli does not meet this criteria, regardless of his (non)reliability)

I think he refused to understand arguments presented to him and that he continued to insist on his SYNTH misinterpretations.

If we do not follow consensus, RSN, RfC and sources and if we refuse to accept arguments of other users, than we can not edit wikipedia.

I think that we are now stuck and I don't see how we can progress with the article in this situation.

Any proposals?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCOMPULSORY: Another user translating something for you is a privilege and not an obligation. Wikipedia is a volunteering effort and nobody is required to give you information as you demand it. Most people just don't have the same amount of time you do.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're attributing SYNTH to Noli i.e from Polog valley doesn't mean not from the Muzaka family, that's your attribution. The Muzaka family used to hold a large area including even regions like Kastoria i.e please stick to the sources and don't attribute to them OR. Based on the latest RSN Noli can be used as he is after all the standard biographer for Skanderbeg. Noli mentions only once that issue and does so by using Muzaka, whose work(chronicle) he considers very important and that's why he uses it as a source. If you want to change the wording propose a new one, but don't IDHT about Noli, whom you consider unreliable as you considered unreliable Hodgkinson even after two RSNs. -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Zjarri, you are again, and again just repeating same words... We all must cooperate and compromise somehow. As nothing else helped, WP:AN may.... Unfortunately... I will also ask for third opinion. -- WhiteWriter speaks 12:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WW you started an AN discussion and asked for admin reaction, although you're the only user, who has been reverting that section, has been accusing other users of vandalism when they revert him and then starting last warning sections on their talkpages. You were reverting with edit summaries saying that the sources are unreliable, but when asked about that you were immediately denying it . I think that we should stick to the RSNs and the latest opinion about the inclusion of all views and as for compromise for the last couple of days you've been asked to propose a rewording based on current sources, if you disagree with the present version.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As you always do, you misinterpreted everything you wrote. I am the only user who tried to put article in the status quo version until we agree, while the rest just quit! Trenching fight is too much for most users. How can you present this is such a way? Blind trolling revert, without talk page intro, with same edit summary, is school example of disruptive editing, trolling, and vandalism. Last warning is there as user was ALREADY warned by other users that such behavior is unacceptable. Zjarri, add your proposition of the section in question, and we will talk about it. I already proposed my version above! As you dont understood, i will write yet again. I dont dispute sources, but sources usage in such a way. You incorrectly quoted and presented sources in this article! We don't have personal opinion of neither Noli, nor Harry Hodgkinson nor David Abulafia, but only Muzaka, and all of them just mention Muzaka as source! "Musachi tells us.." That is not personal opinion. Do you understand now what we are asking? After sixth post? -- WhiteWriter speaks 14:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind. Both of us explained you numerous times, and i don't want to do that anymore. Please, write your own version of the section in question, that is better then version which is currently in article. -- WhiteWriter speaks 14:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)The only minor change I would make is that instead of Hodgkinson and Abulafia support that... I'd write In the work co-written by involved it is supported that she came from the Muzaka family, because you consider it OR to plainly attribute support.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ZjarriRrethues, per this WorldCat page, the book was written by Harry Hodgkinson, edited by Bejtullah Destani and Westrow Cooper, and has an introduction written by David Abulafia. It is factually incorrect to say that this work was co-written by Hodgkinson and Abulafia. Moreover, I think it's a stretch to say that Abulafia's authorship of the introduction constitutes an endorsement of Hodgkinson's views on Vojsava's ethnicity, an issue which is hardly the focus of the book. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I therefore removed the reference to Abulafia from the text of the article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A Stop at Willoughby, i would also mentioned again that we dont know Hodgkinson's views on Vojsava's ethnicity per source presented. -- WhiteWriter speaks 17:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @StopWilloughby if you think that it would too much of an attribution then maybe attributing to just Hodgkinson would be enough. @WW you have added the quote from Hodgkinson i.e when a scholar writes She seems to have belonged to the Musachi that's what's attributed to him.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed the request for a third opinion as four or more are involved in this dispute. WP:RFC or other dispute resolution process would be more appropriate. – Athaenara ✉  01:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WW: Barleti doesn't say Triballi=Serb, but you have already been told that every time.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was not attributed to Barleti. You apparently misread it... He was just use as source for sentence in question. All other can bee seen in article Triballi. -- WhiteWriter speaks 16:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Barleti doesn't say Triballi=Serbs(OR and SYNTH) i.e please don't repeat the same argument ad nauseam.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC) — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 22:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Commented below. -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Protected version
Does anyone have some proposals that we may include in this protected version or that we should fix? Write now, or be quite forever... :) Old problem with Noli's personal attitude is still here. Maybe to use Noli for source in The Muzaka Chronicle sentence? But we dont need it maybe... What do you say? -- WhiteWriter speaks 19:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Barleti is misrepresented and will be removed, Noli is within RSN, which you started.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Noli's work is a PhD thesis for the University of Boston. WP:RS says: Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community...--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, Gaius, i quit on that! :) Compromise from my side! :) Just to let you know that i never questioned his competence, but just usage in that way it was used. -- WhiteWriter speaks 21:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Will be removed? Interesting attitude. Can you say what is misinterpreted in "Marin Barletti's biography of G. Castrioti-Skanderbeg (c. 1510), who informs us that she was the daughter of a "Triballian" lord"? -- WhiteWriter speaks 21:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're attributing to Barleti something that he never wrote i.e OR and SYNTH.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ...tum pater nobilissimus Triballorum princeps..., and in article Triballi, from greek Τριβαλλοί, you may see usage of that word in medieval historical literature, and sources. He did write that, as you may see. For example, D.  Chalkondyles (1423–1511), referring to an islamized christian noble: "... This Mahmud, son of Michael, is Triballian, which means Serbian, by his mother, and Greek by his father.".D. Chalkocondyles (Chalkondyles) cited in C. Paparrigopoulos History of the Greek nation, Athens, 1874, vol. 5, p. 489, in Greek language.-- WhiteWriter speaks 21:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not about Barleti i.e if Barleti didn't write Triballi=Serbs we're not going to attribute to him-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But i cited that from Barleti here, Zjarri! ...tum pater nobilissimus Triballorum princeps... That is from Barleti. And, my god, he didnt write Triballi=Serbs, because 500 years ago, Triballians where name for Serbs, as other sources told us. Barleti was using write name for that time. -- WhiteWriter speaks 21:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Barleti wrote Triballorum i.e since Barleti didn't write Serbian we won't attribute it to him.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is far from relevant argument, it more looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. And who are those "we"? It is only you and me in this discussion, without any meat puppets. And what does mean, by you, that Triballorum? If not Serbs? As we only have sources for Serbs explanation, for now. -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We're(wikipedia community) not supposed to add our own deductions i.e you can't attribute anything to Barleti as long as he didn't write anything about it.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not our own deduction, it is heavily sources. Per that, he DID write Triballi=Serbs, and that is not OR, nor SINTH. Nevertheless, i already know your attitude regarding that, do you have any other comments regarding the rest? -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He didn't write that and that's not something open to debate since this isn't an issue of a point a view.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That sentence above IS your Point of view. :) And everything is open for debate, please, man... This is encyclopedia. But forget that! I asked you question about the rest? Is that only thing? If it is, we will fix it somehow, so all of us can be satisfied with it. Dont worry... Going to sleep now, talk to you tomorrow... All best. -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)I can't have a point of view about a work written about half a millenium ago and neither can you because what Barleti wrote can't change and we can only attribute to him his own words.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Let's see then who said that somebody was born as "Gjergj", "Gjon" etc.--Euzen (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)