Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koja e Kuçit


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The consensus after over a month appears to be to keep the article. Any discussion over content can happen on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 22:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Koja e Kuçit

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails policies. This "Northern Albanian tribe" is in fact an Albanian-inhabited village in Montenegro, called Koći. Compare. Z oupan 05:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. sst✈discuss 05:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Z oupan  06:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)   Blocked sock:Ajdebre.


 * Merge into existing article. Mondiad (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to merge. Delete--Z oupan 04:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 06:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So why did you mark it for deletion if the two articles are completely different? Are we talking about the same village? There is a lot of information inside the article. You should try to improve and properly reference the content instead of deleting other people's work. So constructive from your side! Mondiad (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you even read it? There is obviously none information. It uses "fake" references, which do not reference the text, relating to Battle of Deçiq and Prek Cali, etc – see the hatnote in the article.--Z oupan 22:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
 * I think we can reuse some parts, i.e. the list of last names. --Mondiad (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That list is unsourced, the references do not enumerate any surnames.--Z oupan 10:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. In light of the recent discussion, I change my vote to keep the article. It is clear that the article is about the tribe (even if minor), and not the settlement. We have similar situations we can use as example. For each tribe we have an article which covers the tribe, its geographical region, history, economy, etc., one or more articles about the administrative units, i.e. the municipalities or districts on a administrative point of view, and one or more articles about the settlements that the tribe fills.
 * I.e.:
 * Shala (tribe) about the tribe itself.
 * Shalë, Albania about the administrative division
 * Abat, Theth, etc about the settlements of the Shala population

The same situation appears here. This article is about the tribe (1 above), while the article Zoupan mentions is just a settlement (3 above).--Mondiad (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 15:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge content from Kuči into this article (while parts of it can be used for the Koći, the original settlement of the tribe). Note that there are two articles about the tribe, Kuči (for region and tribe) and Koja e Kuçit. Note that the tribe exists nowadays mostly outside of the settlement of Koći, so it deserves its own article. Also note that since the very first edit of this article in 2007 the user intended the article for the tribe, not the settlement. The article needs improvements, but it is one of the 7 tribes of the Malësia, the others being Hoti, Gruda, Kelmendi, Kastrati, Shkreli, and Trieshi. The settlement itself used to be called Koja e Kuçit. Marko Miljanov dedicated to the tribe an entire book, published in Beograd in 1904 (Pleme Kuci u narodnoj prici i pjesmi (see republished in 1989)). I am not sure about the validity of the article of Kuči, as it describes the region much wider than what the sources say. --MorenaReka (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, slow down. The tribe is called Kuči (it has its own article), and is not made up of the Koći "tribe", but of several brotherhoods. You obviously have no insight in Montenegrin tribes. I repeat, do not keep Koja e Kuçit, which is a copy of Koći. "Koja e Kuçit" means "Kojë (Koći) of Kuči". --Z oupan 17:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
 * My approach to this issue is very calm, Zoupan. Besides the fact that this article is about the tribe, and not the settlement, given what you wrote in my talk page, you seem to not know what "Kojë" means, and that's why you have an issue accepting the fact that the settlement is different from the tribe. "Kojë" means "testicule" in English, as a variation of the Albanian word koqe (koqja-koja). This is per linguist Gjovalin Shkurtaj Sociolinguistikë e shqipes: Nga dialektologjia te etnografia e të folurit, p374. So you can understand now why "Koja e Kucit" simply means the tribe or the "fara" (semen), of Kuci. It is hard to understand these linguistic facts if you aren't aware of the Albanian language, so I am understanding of your misunderstandings. Still, I see the merge into Kuči, possible, or merge from Kuči into Koja e Kuçit. So it's a merge and rename issue. I personally find the article of Kuči weaker than this, as it has for instance incorrect claims, for instance when it says that Triesh is a sub-region of Kuči, when it actually it's a separate tribe. In addition the Kuči article is both about the ethnographic region (very broad, and not backed up by sources), whereas this article is merely on the tribe. This article, I feel, has been written from Albanians whereas Kuči from Serbian/Montenegrin speakers. Both have inaccuracies. A merge should be done, and I feel like the naming might have some difficulties, but the merge is primary.
 * To summarize my thoughts, since an uninvolved user can have nightmares if (s)he sees this thread: I propose that for now we keep all three articles:
 * Koja e Kuçit for the tribe
 * Koći for the settlement
 * Kuči for the wider region (although I'm not sure how valid this is for its extension, and for claiming a bunch of brotherhoods into the same tribe). MorenaReka (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment Wow, slow down, again. You are terribly wrong. Do not Original Research with a toponymical entry to counter undisputed facts: It should not be merged into Koći or Kuči (outrageous). Koći is a village, and Kuči is a historical meso-region. The article Koja e Kuçit is a major NPOV- and VERIFY-fail and should be deleted. I'm confused why we still have this discussion. -Z oupan 21:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
 * "Koja e Kuçit" is only used in = "village ... Koja e Kuçit in Montenegro". This village is known in Serbian-Montenegrin as Koći:  = "Koći, a village in Kuči". If you still don't get it, here's a nationalist Albanian work in English:.
 * The village is inhabited by a "brotherhood" (several families), which as a whole could never be designated a "tribe". The village belongs geographically to the Kuči tribe/region, but is ethnographically belonging to the Klimenti and Hoti. The village is inhabited by 54 people. Is that a tribe? Koći/Koja ≠ Kuči. Kuči is an actual tribe, mentioned since the Middle Ages, and it includes a region far greater than one tiny village, and brotherhoods far more than 54 inhabitants.
 * Why did you discount Shkurtaj? He too uses Koja e Kucit?
 * Again this article is about the tribe, not the settlement. The tribe can exist outside of the settlement, be it in New York/Sydney/Paris. As you said Koći is a village, and Kuči is a historical meso-region, whereas Koja e Kuçit is a tribe/clan, so you are validating my words above. --MorenaReka (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Shkurtaj does not have information on the "Koja tribe". He mentions it in passing solely in the respect of a village (the village clan). The clan (a political unit) inhabits only this village (read it), how could you not understand this? Why separate the village from its inhabitants (the families you are claiming as a "tribe")?--Z oupan 17:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
 * You need to separate them, because when someone leaves the settlement he/she is still part of the tribe, no matter where he/she lives. I thought I explained this already. To make it more clear, there are more Maclean last names outside of Argyll, then in Argyll.MorenaReka (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep (although Mondiad's suggestion about a merge also suffices here too). Koja (e Kucit) alongside the village of Fundina formed a micro bajrak which was part of Kuci yet also a entity of its own, due to distinct ethno-linguistic matters and so on. The name of the village has lent its name to the micro-bajrak. For that reason it should stay. Moreover due to this duality in Albanian sources Koja e Kucit is placed alongside other bigger bajraks/tribes which are also treated as ethnographic regions . Zoupan you keep insisting on inline citations. I agree with you yet you have not done the same for the Koći article which makes a few claims about Albanian settlers. A little concerned that you have not provided those over there, especially while insisting on them here. This article is in need of a overhaul and the tags for referencing and so on need to be added (if not already). There is literature on Koja published by people from the area. This article needs work. That's all. Whoever wrote this article has also been writing the history of Koja article on Albanian Wikipedia with much detail though doing a less than impressive job with the referencing > .Resnjari (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is crazy. It is a village. Bare notability, and you want to separate it into two articles (?). Your comment on me instisting on inline citations makes no sense, the references mention the village only trivially, the sources I used at Koći have several pages of intricate information. Despite three keeps, I doubt this will go through.--Z oupan 14:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
 * Regarding my comments about a inline on the Koci article, this sentence "The Albanians (Mari and Gorvoki), originally from Vukelji in Klimenti, had moved from Podgrad in Orahovo to Koći where they violently expelled some of the Serbs found there, besides the native Serb Bakečević whom they subsequently entered kinship with and Albanized". which talks about violently "expelling" Serbs and others being "Albanized" needs an inline considering that the Arnautaš theory (Serbs being "Albanianized") pushed by Serbian academics back in the day has been shown to be problematic to say the least (see peer reviewed article: "Anscombe, Frederic F, (2006). "The Ottoman Empire in Recent International Politics - II: The Case of Kosovo". The International History Review. 28.(4)"). As for this article it needs work but not an outright deletion. You are aware that Albanian Wikipedia portal is understaffed (to use the term) unlike other Wikipedia projects on the English version.Resnjari (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Erdeljanović studied the villages in Kuči, and gathered information from the inhabitants themselves. The origin stories come from these families. Surely, you understand that Arnautaši is not a theory — assimilation obviously happened both ways. Now back to the discussion, are you guys still believing that this pseudo-article shall remain?--Z oupan 15:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
 * First off no one doubts that Erdeljanović did not do fieldwork there, however considering the source is one old and two difficult to access, it is important that inline citations are given for controversial bits that say "violently expelled" or "Albanianzed". Otherwise i can place a myrid of Albanian sources that say the opposite about Slavisation without inlines and will say that you can take my word on it. Also the Arnautaš hypothesis is a theory pushed by Serbian academics. No one questions that "assimilation obviously happened both ways." Its just that Serbian sources from that era where imbued with a certain perspective and terminology (i.e: Arnautaš) and that one has to be cautious and aware of that., . You need to provide inlines for bits like i have outlined.Resnjari (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I will present quotes on the article talk page. But what does this have to do with this discussion? Is the village and the clan, which inhabits the village, two separate things (articles), despite failing notability and verifiability? Are you seriously voting for its keep?--Z oupan 17:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre. Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
 * Both are two separate things. During World War One the British Admiralty in a detailed map of Northern Albania listing the Albanian tribes gives Koja e Kucit (written on the map as Kochai) with borders as a separate bajrak or tribe . So is Trieshi (written as Triepshi, also known as Zatrijebac). They are not subsumed under Kuci, though both are related to it and from the Slavic point of view are treated as being part of one tribe. However since the tribes for one regard themselves as Albanians and speak Albanian and see their clans as distinct and separate, Wikipedia articles can exist on it without it being subsumed under the village article of Koci or the tribe article of Kuci. So regarding "notability and verifiability" of Koja e Kucit, the British Admiralty and thus army where well aware of its existence. Also in Albanian sources from Montenegro (such as the ethnographic journal magazine Buzuku  >  > ) it is treated as a separate bajrak. There are sources, its just that the article needs a lot of work. It should stay. As for the inlines, why i mentioned it is because you where asking for inlines about this article. The same should apply to the village article especially to certain parts that ii have outlined and others  too like celebration of a patron saint being a Serb only custom.Resnjari (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add before that there are issues with Erdeljanović's scholarship (such as political overtones and use of methodologies like evolutionism that where problematic etc). see works on Serbian ethnography and him cited in > p. 19. ; p. 101 and 102  ; p. 159..
 * Hence you are going to need to provide inline for the following sentences:
 * "had moved from Podgrad in Orahovo to Koći where they violently expelled some of the Serbs found there, besides the Bakečević whom they subsequently entered kinship with and Albanianized."
 * " At the end of the 18th century there was fighting between the Albanian Koći and Kuči Serbs, after which the Nuculović together with the Stjelović moved from Jabuka to Koći, where the Stjelović subsequently Albanianized. By the early 19th century, the families of Serb origin in Koći were fully Albanianized. The Albanian immigrants and Albanized Serbs in Zatrijebač, divided somewhat geographically from the other Kuči, initially were divided from the rest of the Kuči and acted more as their own clan."
 * " The Albanians then proceeded to Koći where they violently expelled some native Serbs and settled in the village.[7] The settling of Albanians is recalled by elder Ćel Pepe (of the Marâ brotherhood): the Koći Albanians' ancestors came there as a strong brotherhood attacking the village, in which there were 5-6 houses belonging to some Vlachs (most likely Serbs), and 2 houses which belonged to the Bakečević family (which were initially Serb). The Albanians killed some and dispersed some of the Vlachs, and took over their property, and the next day the Bakečević who awaited the same fate approached the Albanians and asked them to spare them and let them become "godsons". The Albanians accepted, and still today the Bakečević live in the village, although fully Albanized. Nearby there was a hamlet called Lopari, whose inhabitants could not manage the Koći Albanians' violence,"
 * "The Serb origin of the Ivačević and Purušić is evident in their names"
 * "At the end of the 18th century there was fighting between the Albanian Koći and Kuči Serbs, after which the Nuculović together with the Stjelović moved from Jabuka to Koći, where the Stjelović subsequently Albanianized."

This sentence has no source and the way its written is POV pushing. Celebrating patron saints was not a Serb only custom.> *"The Serbian Orthodox tradition of krsna slava has also been found in Albanians living in Montenegro, Kosovo and northern Albania."


 * This is needed in light of one, issues with Erdeljanović's scholarship and two because the Koja e Kucit article is being proposed for deletion and that the Koci article's contents may be used to make a decision with may prejudice the outcome here regarding possible deletion of this article.Resnjari (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What? Is that why? Is this common practice, adding random sources that are doubtly bibliography regarding the subject (without pages, btw)?? Now, I have already presented a summarization of Erdeljanović at the talk page. There were pages since the beginning. Based on this battlegroundedness of yours, I will not continue quoting as you have not refuted it with references. Use the talk page. The links on Erdeljanović say that he was a Yugoslavist, and not that there is any problem with his scholarship. Now, to the "references" that you posted: Is this the source you use for determining whether the "bajrak" of Koja and the village of Koja should be separated? As for the slava, it is a Serbian Orthodox custom, period; the fact that Albanian families have it does not mean that they are Serb.--Z oupan 20:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
 * Regarding the random sources i accept what you have said and they will need to be removed. And i said that the article needs work. That is different from what you have said which is outright deletion. I have provided a very strong source, a intelligence map complied by the British admiralty of the Northern Albanian tribes during World War One. Koja e Kucit (written on the map as Kochay is clearly delineated with borders as a tribe in its own right.) As for the Buzuku source what's the issue ? It is a Albanian periodical in Montenegro whereby Albanian acedemics contribute articles about the culture of Albanians living there. I gave you the 3 links so you can see the article in whole (its earlier issues are not given as whole PDF, but in separated from. I probably should have asked can you read Albanian or is a translation needed ?). The third link is to the article that discusses clothing and lists the tribes and their settlements in Montenegro. This is becuase you said that Koja is not mentioned in "any" Albanian source as a tribe. So i have provided an example.


 * "Based on this battlegroundedness of yours, I will not continue quoting as you have not refuted it with references."


 * I have not refuted anything. I want to know first what the original says regarding certain sentences which sound problematic without citations as i have outlined. That is a reasonable request. You need to take that into consideration as you have called for something serious, such as the deletion of this article. In the talkpage you have already had to change the wording of one sentence due to the original saying something a little different when you presented the inline. You need to provide inline's for the other bits that i have outlined.


 * "As for the slava, it is a Serbian Orthodox custom, period; the fact that Albanian families have it does not mean that they are Serb."


 * Also why is the bit about the Serbian slava mentioned in the article then? It is unsourced and the celebration of a patron saint by families was not only a Serbian custom. It's purpose in this article is for what ? Also see article: The use of holidays for political purposes (starting from page 69 onwards) which talks about the Slava and how it was appropriated to promote and denote certain political agendas in the late 19th and early 20th centuries . Page 70 states that the celebration of a patron saint by families was/is a wide Balkan custom not limited to the Serbs.


 * As for Erdeljanović, his scholarship is to be taken with caution . Reason being that on page 102, on the paragraph which talks about Serbian "political ethnology", Erdeljanović is one of its proponents. His ethnological works were imbued with a political slant. That whole chapter in the source i cite refers to that type of ethnography common during Erdeljanović's era and revived during Milosevic's time. Also that some of Erdeljanović's research based on evolutionism has been discredited in international scholarship (see page 159: ). My concerns are more than justified and in line with Wikipedia policy on sources .Resnjari (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You're exaggerating. The Koći clan is in the scope of Koći, and does not have prerequisites for a stand-alone article (for the 10th time). The Admiralty map is of "Albanian frontiers" in WW1, obviously a strategic map, and it is in no way a strong source for the separation of clan and village. Note that the map uses "Kochai" (Koći, and not Koja) and its present geographical location (a village), and that's it. "violently expelled" ←→ "killed and expelled by force" (?). The chapter deals with Serbian-Bulgarian matters; Albanians do have name days, not slava. It should not be confusing that Catholic Albanians in Montenegro have cultural influences from Montenegrin Serbs, and vice versa. Note that "political ethnology" is a term for various approaches in historical anthropological studies, and not just one. Erdeljanović did fieldwork throughout the mixed Serbian and Yugoslav lands. His "evolutionism" relates only to his Yugoslavist viewpoint in 1932 and 1938 as explicitly cited. I will have Koći expanded with other sources as well.--Z oupan 08:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
 * Yes the map is about Albanian frontiers regarding Montenegrin and Serbian claims. It also contains a very detailed overlay of the boundaries and tribes of northern Albanian speaking peoples. Yes it is written as Kochay. What's the issue ? Spellings of Albanian names at that time where not uniform (As Albanian only became standardised later and its spelling adopted after the war). Are you inferring that Kochay is somehow different from Koja e Kucit ? The Koja tribe contains hamlets such as Šulani and Osojna (given in the Buzuku article) and so on (settlements of Koja or Koci) and the territory shown on the map shows a wider breadth of territory than just the village of Koci which your comment: does not take into account. Compare British Admiralty map with Yugoslav military map of Podgorica area.


 * Its small though separate. So it does have prerequisites for being a stand alone article. Maybe from the Montenegrin point of view Koja e Kucit is not a tribe but a clan, though from the Albanian point of view it is considered a separate entity. That was the same view that even the British admiralty had when they complied that detailed map. Regarding the "violently expelled" bit you changed it to bring it into line with the source. I just noted your change. If we get more inline's there might be more changes. You will need to place inline's in the article for the sentences i have outlined as they are problematic because the source is old and inaccessible. Also there is more than enough scholarship out there that discusses issues with Serbian ethnographes from the era pushing certain political agendas. For example authors such as Gopcevic is one, Cvijic is another to name a few. Erdeljanović does not come clear of that millieu as the chapter discusses the formation of Serbian political ethnographes and issues around it back in the day and its revival during the Milosevic era in the wider chapter. The fine line between research and politics with some of these authors is an issue. You yourself said he was into Yugoslavism, and Albanians were never considered part of that concept. Becuase of those concerns, that is why i call for inline's of those sentences and you need to place them in the article. As for . That is interesting as the article itself says nothing about the vice versa bit about celebration of saint names. All it says in the article is that The sentance is basically saying that the tradition comes from the Serbs only. Nothing about it being a shared custom or its relevance in the article about a settlement which is inhabited by Catholic Albanians. Moreover the Serb only issue is contradicted by the peer reviewed source i placed above looking at the matter holistically which shows that such pan-Balkan customs were appropriated as Serb only by Serbian authors regarding the promotion of certain political agendas.


 * Hristov writes on page 70. "In a very indicative work on the political use of tradition, Slobodan Naumovic points out that in the interwar period the set of ethno-identification markers which made up “the Serbian national tradition” had already been established. He classifies them into three groups: historical tradition, Eastern-Orthodox-Sr. Sava tradition, involving the activity of the Patriarchate of Pec, and folk (rural) tradition, bringing together a number of material elements, traditional institutions, customs and beliefs of the traditional culture of Serbs. Special emphasis in the last group has been given to the custom of slava (Naumovic 1996: 131). The inclusion in the list of this family and kinship holiday as part of the set of ethno-markers of Serbian national identity is not accidental. It is celebrated equally under different names in different parts of the Balkan Peninsula (not only West of the Iskär River), equally by the Slavic population (Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians, Macedonians) and by the non-Slavic Wallachians, Aromanians and Catholic Albanians. As early as in the 1860s and 1870s, after the publication of Milo Miloevic’s composition (Putopis dela Prave-Stare-Srbije. Beograd 1871—1877g. [Travelogue of Part of the Rightful Old Serbia]), he and a number of his followers established the principle “Gdeje slava, tuje Srbin” [“Wherever There is Slava, There is a Serb!”]. They promoted it to the status of a guiding principle in the formation of the national strategy, and the slava was therefore transformed into an ethnic identification marker (alongside the specific features of the traditional attire, folklore, and dialects) and into an argument in the diplomatic relations and political discourse concerning the major changes in the Balkans in the wake of the Russian-Turkish War of 1877—1878, the San Stefano Peace Treaty and the subsequent Berlin Congress (1878). So though is slava (the Serbian name of the custom), yet not a Serbian derivative custom that other Balkan peoples adopted. So that sentence (also unsourced) as it stands now is POV pushing. It is saying that the saint's name day as which Koci people celebrate is a "Serbian" derivative custom.Resnjari (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * St.Constantinus is the patron saint of Perugia, Vincent of Saragossa is the patron saint of Lisbon, and Saint Nicholas is the patron saint of Bari. Is this part of the Serbian slava too? This is nonsense.
 * We should try to bring the Koci article in a neutral state first, and then we can see how to merge this article into Koci, even though a settlement and a tribe are 2 different things. Right now both articles need improvement. --Mondiad (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Resnjari: Kochai as in using Koći, the village name. Hamlets, you said it. That's the thing, it's a strategical map, from Albanian POV (would the borders be the same if it was "Montenegrin frontiers"?). Vice versa, as in assimilation. As far as I know, the slava (family patron saint celebration) is part of only the Serbian Orthodox canon (@Mondiad: Don't get silly). The wording regarding slava in Albanians could be changed, yes.--Z oupan 13:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.


 * Explain how a map from the British Admiralty( a renowned military institution) is Albanian POV, considering the map also has borders regarding Serbia/Montenegro of its territorial claims in the area? The British wanted to know the outlines of Albanian tribes. That is POV ? Also the map was composed just as the Albanian state came into being (if one can call it that as barely existed in any form). The map deals with Albanian tribal boundaries (not official Albanian state boundaries) and Serbian/Montenegrin claims for new borders as per the treaty of London. Also hamlets in these regions have varying to the country of the day either been counted under a larger settlement or in their own right and vice versa. Again the British map shows Kochay (Koja e Kucit) as a distinct entity encompassing a territory that goes beyond the bounds of just the Koci village (especially when compared with other detailed military maps such as those of Yugoslavia). And the issue with that is what ?  Locals regard certain settlements as separate and so on. When the two maps are superimposed Koci and the village of Fundina and associated small hamlets form the area of Koja e Kucit.  Scholarship shows something different regarding that. Like i pointed to the slava sentence in the article, there is nothing about  as you state. Its why i question the relevance of the Slava Serbian bit in an article about Catholic Albanians. Familial celebration of a patron saint is a pan-Balkan custom, not just a Serbian one or derived from the Serbs. Its political use in its appropriation has been cited. You can read the peer reviewed source in full as i placed the link to it. This article should stay and be worked on. Koja e Kucit is a real tribal entity in its own right.Resnjari (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 23:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The strategic map is depicting territories from Albanian POV, point-of-view, stance, during war (!). As a strategic map, it is meant to show the (armed, able) Albanian units in the frontier (geopolitics). Koći simply put had that horizon, towards the northwest and northeast villages of Medun and Orahovo. The "distinct entity" does not include other villages existing today. You should have a look at the geology, it is sleeping. How is it not relevant? It is an important feast of all of Kuči, who share St. Stephen as their summer feast. However, I am not sure if the Koći Albanians still have it today. The custom is still part of the Serbian Orthodox canon and characteristic for Orthodox Serbs. I do still not think that splitting one and the same subject is the right way. None of the modern sources on Malsor tribes enumerate Koći as its own tribe (Elsie 2015, Fishta 2005).--Z oupan 05:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
 * Is this your personal opinion or do you have something to back this up with? The map was compiled by the British Admiralty and the British government was pro-Serbian during the war and its immediate aftermath. The map presents details of tribal borders that do not have international recognition, though are a reality for the people living there. In no way does the map purport that those tribal borders are official. Your claims of "Albanian POV" are baseless. The official Albanian border is given in green which coincides with today's borders (except in the Has region which half was ceded to Serbia in 1918-1919). Within the map there are no Albanian border claims given. Also i have had a look at the geology of the map and that's why i placed the detailed Yugoslav military map for comparison. The Koja tribe's borders shown on the British map coincide with territories of Koci village and Fundina village and their small hamlets. The detailed British map recognized Koja e Kucit (written as Kochay) as a entity in its own right. If one was to compare the British map with one done by a Austrian scholar Franz Siener, that map does in no way give clear boundaries of the Hot, Gruda, Triesh or Koja tribes. Also the map incorporates most of the Kuci territory without naming it (Compare a recent map of Montenegrin tribes which roughly shows the location of Kuci ) and in that sense can be considered POV pushing as the Slavic speaking Kuci was not part of the Albanian tribal world. The British map very clearly shows Koja as a separate tribal entity covering a small but spread out territory going beyond the bounds of Koci village. They do not incorporate any of the Slavic-speaking villages of Kuci tribe proper (see and compare for example the current census map of ethnic distribution:.


 * Serbs sources which you use also say another thing as they present the Serbian view of the tribal structure. Serbs sources commenting on Albanian matters from the era are to be taken with caution (i have presented sources to that effect and outlined my reasons in previous comments in full) as many peer reviewed Western academics have done in recent times. I am also concerned with Erdeljanovic use of the term "Albanized" and "Albanianized Serbs" due to Serbian scholarship of the era using such terms with a political agenda. When those informants of Koci told him about common origins did they mean that some where assimilated, or that a symbiosis occurred or what ? Do you have a secondary (non-Serbian peer reviewed) source which has done an analysis of Erdeljanovic to vouch for him and that some of that content which you have placed is free from the wider problematic issues that Serbian ethnography (imbued with political agendas) had regarding Albanian matters during that era?


 * Also Elsie's book is a collection of primary documentation in his tribes book which covers bits and pieces of the Albanian tribal world. His book is not an secondary scholarly analysis of the Albanian speaking tribes. As for the Fishta source you cite, it is a reprint of Gjergj Fishta's lengthy epic/poem written by him in the 1930s, way after the events it refers. It is not a scholarly work and its contents are not to used to determine such matters as this (Again see Wikipedia policy on reliable sources: Identifying reliable sources. Koja e Kucit is a tribe of its own and the article should stand with a major overhaul of it. I am glad the patron saint celebration bit has now been changed in the article (which was POV pushing before), a little retweeking may be needed of it though just to make sure that the reader understand it is a pan-Balkan custom.Resnjari (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.