Talk:Voisava Kastrioti/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

PARTICIPANTS

1 STEP (Template)

First, at the start, Template. I fixed it a bit, following the info at Template:Infobox_royalty/doc regarding this stuff. I hope that all of you agree, talk for anything more. I included all links, as in Infobox_royalty/doc we have that people without an article can be included in the infobox, and it looks better, if you ask me. --WhiteWriter speaks 20:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to mention that will will not move on to the next step until all participants write their opinions and agreement here. --WhiteWriter speaks 16:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Royalty is defined as "A royal family is the extended family of a king or queen regnant." The only royal family that Vojsava belonged to was House of Branković. Vojsava's husband Gjon/Ivan was not a monarch and Vojsava was not a queen of Gjon/Ivan's monarchy. Maybe we should use another template in this article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree, i also noticed that. Replaced with person infobox, that one is even bigger and better anyway... --WhiteWriter speaks 16:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, per infobox usage propositions, we need source for religion. What do you propose? --WhiteWriter speaks 17:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I doubt we can find sources which directly support information about her religion. Sources which can be used in this article according to RSN (works of contemporary historians which directly support some information without synth) does not pay attention to her religion, as far as I noticed. If I am right we have choice to reach consensus about her religion without provided sources (which I doubt is possible) or to leave this field blank. I propose to avoid disputes about everything we can and to leave this field blank.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree and  Done regarding religion. We will now wait for the rest of participants to agree. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Instead of waiting you can rely on BRD cycle and continue. Taking in consideration that you did not write anything, it is not likely that anybody will object. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, then, following that and this, i will start with the lede... --WhiteWriter speaks 15:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Are you finished with infobox?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
What is "Native" name? What we need is the name(s) that can be found in the bibliography, which are Vojsava Kastrioti Tripalda or Tribalda (Hopf, Hahn). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euzen (talk • contribs) 08:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Native name is here defined as: "The person's name in their own language". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, infobox is finished, so we should add new section. --WhiteWriter speaks 09:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I think there are some important fields which are left blank, like her nationality.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
There is one field with the caption of the (nonexisting) image: Princess of the Principality of Kastrioti. I propose to delete it because there is no image for the caption.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
According to the Skanderbeg article, Staniša was the eldest son. Her children should not be listed like now (sons first, daughters last) but oldest first.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that i  Fixed it now. Please, just see is it all correct, and are all of the children lined by their birth. Skanderbeg is fifth child? --WhiteWriter speaks 12:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You can safely add "christian" as her religion. "Princess" is possibly an overstatement. Possibly "a noble woman" is better. In listing children you can follow the order given by an authors with the proper citation.--Euzen (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it may be better not to include religion, as we dont have proper source to support that. And for the listing, i think that this was the way of birth, per source. --WhiteWriter speaks 16:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

2 STEP (Lede introduction)

I added first sentence from the original article. Now:

  1. Do we really need 4 sources for Polog?
  2. Are all sources for Polog ok in this context?
  3. Is the words Balkanian princess ok, following that she was not monarchy?
  4. Should we separate this into two sentences?

And those are my questions... :))) --WhiteWriter speaks 09:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No need for 4 sources for Polog. No source which is presented it work of contemporary historian (request of RSN) and therefore presented sources should be replaced with one or two source of contemporary historians. I am against Balkanian princess because it can mislead readers to believe there was some Balkanian monarchy of which she was a princess. I propose to write: "medieval princess from the Balkans", or something like that.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
She was a princess of the Kastrioti Principality and that's her only noble status. She wasn't a princess of an unknown political entity to give such titles.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree. Princess status can be derived from her being daughter too. We have work of two contemporary historians who found out that she belonged to the House of Branković, i.e. she was princess from House of Branković.
There is a serious issue with Kastrioti Principality explained here. There are serious mistakes in that article and I propose not to introduce that term until serious issues are resolved. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Even Petrovski considers it doubtful i.e stick to the sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
That is just your misinterpretation. Please read detailed analysis I wrote more carefully (Boban Petrovski supported the latter position, despite the fact that no authentic medieval sources show that Vojsava was member of Brankovići family). Besides, he claimed that the only reason for the absence of the medieval documents about connection of Kastrioti and Branković families is that such documents did not survived (информации за поврзаноста благородничките семејства Кастриоти и Бранковик ...отсуство на податоци за нивна роднинска поврзеност да не значи нивно непостоење, туку современа научна јавност да не располага со афирмативни изворни вести само заради тоа што во историско наследство не се сочувани такви релевантни информации.
Please do not misinterpret Boban Petrovski work with claims that he did not support his own opinion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, main idea is that when we disagree about something, we will just not add questionable sentences. I am also for the "medieval princess from the Balkans" for the lede, as we can and will place other information's regarding Kastrioti Principality down in the article. Tell me, which sources should be use for this sentence? --WhiteWriter speaks 14:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
We should stick to the RSN and RfC and use only works by contemporary historians (preferably written in past 20 years) who directly support certain claim without SYNTH or citing what other people said. This version don't meet those criteria and they should be replaced with those which do. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Please stick to the latest RSN and the Kastrioti Principality part is the only undisputed nobility status, unless you're disputing that she was the wife of Gjon Kastrioti.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
ZjarriRrethues, I will again cite the conclusion of the RSN you refer to: Now... where did I leave that ten foot pole?....I think what is required is a fifteen foot.... I already explained that to you many times. Why do you refuse to understand arguments presented to you? I can only repeat what I wrote on the talk page of the article. 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.
Conclusion: It is impossible to edit wikipedia if we don't follow the rules of wikipedia. Therefore we should should follow the recommendations of wikipedia, RSN and RfC and use only works by contemporary historians (preferably written in past 20 years) who directly support certain claim without SYNTH or citing what other people said. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, calm down, my dear friends! :) Antid, propose the source for the sentence in question. We need, then, works by contemporary historian, why told us that she is princes from the Balkans, and that she is born in Polog. --WhiteWriter speaks 18:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, should we use that "according to some authors"? It looks to me that almost ALL authors told us that she is born in Polog... --WhiteWriter speaks 18:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I propose Boban Petrovski who is contemporary historian who recently published his work about her and who based his research on all existing sources (60 of them) about her.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your question about "according to some authors" I propose to follow WP:NPOV and to "accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" and remove the text between quotation marks. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I changed the sentence. We will see, maybe this is also not the best. Also, i included Petrovski, but only for the sentence than none dispute, that she is from polog. All ok? --WhiteWriter speaks 22:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"15th century medieval" is a pleonasm. "15th century" is OK. "Princess" is debatable. Why not "a Lady" (female of Lord) or "a noble woman". There was not any "Principality of Kastrioti" mentioned by credible sources. --Euzen (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I think "noble woman" might be best. Vojsava's status as a noble is undisputed, whereas her status as a "princess" apparently is. Now, I really want to avoid opening Pandora's box on a page we want to keep drama-free, but I would appreciate it if someone would briefly explain the counterargument to this. Is there disagreement about the timeline? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 Done. If anyone dont have anything more, i will slowly move on with further sentence. --WhiteWriter speaks 16:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to arrive late but to me it doesn't look ok the assertion that she was born in Polog. We have absolutely no source for that claim. That is a pure speculation. Even assuming that she was born to Brankovic family, we don't know neither her birthdate or her birthplace. Aigest (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
No problem, all of this is work in progress. :) OK, what do you propose? Do you have some good source that follow agreed guideline regarding this article, and that told us about Polog? Or should we write something different? Like "originated from family from Polog" or something... --WhiteWriter speaks 09:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Well we can be plain sincere on that and tell that there are no sources on her birthplace and the year of birth. Something like that "her birthplace and year of birth are unknown". Aigest (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that is good observation, Aigest. Nobody explicitly claim she was born in Polog afaik. Sources only mention that she was daughter of the lord of Polog when she married Gjon/Ivan. I support your proposal to write something like "her birthplace and year of birth are unknown". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, the temp article right now claims that she originated from Polog. That is not correct and gives the wrong impression that she was born in Polog. That should be change accordingly with the expression we agreed above. Aigest (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
You are again right. The word originated should be deleted.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 Done And i added sentence "She was daughter of the lord of Polog". That is sourced, and may be relevant. I hope that now all is ok. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

3 STEP (Lede)

I added sentences as it is now in the article. And question is here:

  • Do we have some good source for the Vojsava's children names? Also,
  • Can we use this source for the Vojsava's own family, and her's brothers and sisters?
This is another Voisava.--Euzen (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
If you asked about the chronicle written by John Musachi, then the answer is no, according to RSN. That is not secondary source written by contemporary historian.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Sources for the two other sentences in the lede? Write propositions here.
  • I am afraid that family tree in the Kastrioti family article is very wrong. We should check all of that before inclusion here.
We only need Vojsava's children here.--Euzen (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Should we use wikilinks as we dont have articles for all of those people? Or just use Kastrioti family link in See also section?

And that would be it. :) --WhiteWriter speaks 12:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is wrong to write the names of her son-in-laws in the lede of this article. It is confusing, irrelevant and incorrect to inform readers only about her son-in-laws and not daughters-in-laws. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Etymology of name

In a Greek source I found the name Voisava transliterated as "VoisavEE" which is very close to the Greek for the biblical "Bethsabe". (I think the slavic languages do not have the consonent "th"). Do we know anything about the etymology of this name? --Euzen (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

According to this Serbian name dictionary [1] it's a form of Vojislava, the feminine form of the common Slavic Vojislav. (Linguistically, this would sound plausible, since omission of /l/ appears to be a common dialectal thing in some forms of both South Slavic and Albanian). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Albanian national hero" or "National hero of Albania"?

I suppose you understand the difference. --Euzen (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the section on the talk page in Skanderbeg article about this issue. There are numerous sources which support the information that Skanderbeg was considered as hero not only in Albania and not only by Albanians. Also, there are sources which support information that his activities were not driven by nationality. Though, there are sources which support information that he was nationalized (Albanized more precisely) and that his figure was used in myth making by Albanian nationalists. Finally, there are numerous sources about him not being ethnic Albanian or 100% ethnic Albanian.
Anyway, it is something that is subject of the another article, Skanderbeg. Probably the best way to deal with this issue is to leave it to Skanderbeg article and to avoid any nationalization, nation or country ownership of Skanderbeg.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
This kind of "offtopic debate" in this template, between you guys, including even your previous contributions on the topic, shows actually that both of you are not interested in Tripalda herself (as we supposed to), but on "proving" out that "Scanderbeg was not an Albanian since his mother was a Slav" theme. I don't like nationalist agendas and I am not sure if I am willing to participate here anymore. Aigest (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
"I don't like nationalist agendas" too. That is exactly why I proposed "to leave it to Skanderbeg article and to avoid any nationalization, nation or country ownership of Skanderbeg" in this article. Btw, who are "we"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

In this case we can omit the thorny expression "Albanian national hero", which predisposes the reader that Skanderbeg was Albanian or that he is honoured only in Albania or unanimously by all Albanians etc, while the rest of the article doesn't offer a concrete conclusion on this. "Mother of Castrioti-Skanderbeg" is enough. We also avoid further perplexions if muslim Albanians enter this discussion.--Euzen (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Bulgarians and Triballians

Barletti says "Bulgari sive Triballi habitant". I understand this as "Bulgarians or Triballians live (there)". This doesn't mean that Bulgarians and Triballians are synonymous. Besides, the article Triballi overwhelmingly supports that Triballi is synonymous to Serbs. However, an expert in medieval latin could possibly be invited in this discussion to give his opinion.

I erased "Albanian National hero" as it sounds contradictory to the info on the possible Serbian origin of V. Personally i think more proper the "National hero of Albania" which doesn't exclude the view of Sk. being Albanian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euzen (talk • contribs) 17:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I am against "Albanian National hero". It is wrong and against WP:NPOV whatever meaning it can have. If it means:
  1. "born in region of Albania" then Skanderbeg was not Albanian (or it is disputed at least) because maybe he was not born in Albania but in region of Debar in Macedonia. Debar is in Macedonian region which part belongs to Republic of Albania.
  2. "born in country which name is Albania" then it is again wrong because state Albania did not exist when he was born
  3. "ethnic Albanian" then it is again incorrect because his ethnicity is disputed and information about that dispute can be found in almost every text which is written about him (except in this article)
  4. "Hero of Albania" then it is again incorrect because Skanderbeg is not on the list of people who were awarded with this title.
  5. "hero of ethnic Albanians" then it is again incorrect because Skanderbeg is considered as hero by many other people, not only Albanians
  6. "hero of people who live in Albania" then it is again wrong because he is considered as hero by many citizens of many other countries besides Albanian
I propose to avoid any kind of nationalization of Skanderbeg in article about his mother.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Boban Petrovski

He writes: la liaison entre la mère de Scanderbeg et le genre des Brankovices peut être mis sous une grave doute à cause de fait que dans les sources informant aux événements du XV siècle on ne peut pas trouver les informations qui concernent cette liaison entre les deux familles nobles, les Castriotes et les Brankovices. This means: the connection between the mother of Scanderbeg and the relatives of the Brankovic family can be put under a serious doubt because of the fact that in the sources informing on the events of the fifteenth century we can not find the information concerning the connection between the two noble families, Castriota and Brankovic.

So, the connection between Brankovic and Voisava is not supported by documents. Majuru (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Like any other connection.--Euzen (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Humm.. Actually, he writes: "Доколку ја прифатиме оваа варијанта, според која Бранковиките биле господари на/во Полог до почетког на последната деценија од XIV век, во тој случај произлегува дека Воисава била керка на Гргур или пак, можеби на Вук Бранковик." You apparently find some other source, not Petrovski. Please, in the future, first discus your edits, and then revert, as even despite this source, we have another one for the same claim. Now, please, restore this. Thanks. --WhiteWriter speaks 09:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
[2], so the view attributed to him should be rephrased.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Much Ado About Nothing?

The name Vojsava as the wife of Scanderbeg is mentioned by later historians, Barleti, Muzaka, Francus, but not in documentary sources. However in contemporary sources according to a Ragusian notarial act, dated July 7, 1439, her name was Jella. She is mentioned as Gjon Kastrioti widow and together with Gjergj Kastrioti are represented as legitimate heirs of the late Gjon Kastrioti. Abbot Pjetër was authorised by Jella and Gjergj Kastrioti on a document dated 15 March 1439 to deal with a monetary issue (some Ragusian nobles named Pjetër Pantell and his nephew Filip de Silva had a debt of 123 ducats toward Gjon Kastrioti). However this document could not be found, but we are informed for its existence by the later document dated July 7, 1439, which was written in the presence of the Rector of Ragusa named Vita de Resti. It begins with "Honored abbot Pjetër as the ambassador of the lady Jella, the widow of the lord Gjon Kastrioti and lord Gjergj his son...." I recommend to use Google translator for more info on that document. Aigest (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Aigest, you are totally right... We are all crazy after one year of discusion, digging trough sources stretching over 500 years, trying to find some normal view about person who is almost completely irrelevant in historical context... I have one proposition, and would love to ask all of you for opinion. I really, really, really want that all of us agree here, and that all of us find solution. I will create subpage for this article, with version that we can edit as we want, and we should agree on every source that should be included on it. I will not care about current state of the article, but we will follow sentence by sentence and source by source, it shouldn't be a problem, article is stub anyway! :) At the end, we will have some good stub, that will be our creation, and we will move it, and delete subpage. :) What do you say? Or i should create it first, so you may understand better? That will be like mediation, but without mediator, or pressure. I think that it will be really good way of reaching agreement. --WhiteWriter speaks 19:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I done it! :)
Talk:Vojsava Tripalda/Temp is place for our new best possible article.
Talk:Vojsava_Tripalda/Temp-talk is place for discussion regarding that new draft.
I started with template first. I expended it, little changed it, so, i would first ask your for your opinion regarding that, on draft talk page. People, i am really happy! This is great way for solution. We will go slowly, part by part, and at the end, we will have great article!! Please, just follow my idea, and article space will be untouched during our agreement! --WhiteWriter speaks 20:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this is worth trying. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Me too.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I might participate. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Euzen (talk • contribs) 13:50, 22 June 2011

Map

Can we integrate this map [3] in the article, showing the Ottoman Balkans in the year when Constantinople fell to the Turks? "Stelushi" and the region of Dibra is also represented. Majuru (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Nop. The map shows borders and territories that did not exist. In reality the whole area was in a political chaos and "borders" were changing seasonally and according to the ability of armies to move around. This is also indicated by Schmitt who displays a map of Skanderbeg's territory "during summer".--Euzen (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
As far as Schmitt's map is concerned, it do not represent Skanderbeg's territories but territories which were under his direct control, ie. areas where the Turks weren't opposing Skanderbeg's lordship. The map has been misinterpreted by some -- most notable Ardian Klosi -- since to them it almost suggests that Kruje wasn't under Skanderbeg's control as it is not part of the shaded area -- even though Kruja did not fall until 1478. The map Majuru gives doesn't seem to represent territorial boundaries -- apart from Venetian, Genoan, and Serbian 1350 territories -- but geographical areas. Nevertheless, I think the map Majuru wants to include is not the main one but the one due to the bottom right which has no borders at all. It seems very useful and I think it should be included.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oliver Schmitt citations

Several people have been inserting claims in the article to the effect that O. Schmitt in a book publication "considered Skanderbeg half-Slavic", but that in a later interview with an Albanian newspaper he "changed his views and denied his earlier thesis" [4]. Both of these claims seem to be wrong, as far as I can see from the material actually cited. If the literal quote from Schmitt's book ("Einen ethnischen Gegensatz zwischen Serben und Albanern kann man in der Elite Mittelalter nicht festsellen") is anything to go by, the first summary is quite distorting. Saying that somebody was "half-X" or "half-Y" is not the same as saying that "there was no perceivable ethnic distinction between X and Y"; in fact, the first statement would contradict the second. Likewise for the interview (note that I can read it only through Google translation, but it gives me the gist of it) [5]: The interviewer appears to be asking Schmitt, "can you tell us anything about your claim that Skanderbeg was of non-Albanian origin?", and Schmitt answers, "I am absolutely not of that opinion!". Obviously, Schmitt isn't saying that he changed his mind; he is saying that the interviewer, with his stupid oversimplified and leading question, has not summarized his published opinion adequately; he then goes on to say why. If there's anything in the interview that I have missed, please let me know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me first ask you one important question:
If I understood your explanation correctly (sorry if I am wrong because, as you already know, my English is not perfect) ZjarriRrethues misinterpreted the source when he added the following information "considered Skanderbeg half-Slavic, however, Schmitt later changed his views and denied his earlier thesis."?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know who first added those bits; they seem to have been re-added and removed several times. What I am saying is that both halves of that statement, as far as I can see now, appear seriously over-simplified. What is apparently true is that in the interview he confirmed that he does not intend to put into doubt the standard view that Skanderbeg was Albanian; he also appears to be stressing in the interview that whatever it was he wrote earlier in his book did not in his view contradict that view. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I provided a link who "first added those bits". Will you please answer my question, was that misinterpretation?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Antid. please don't try to insert several of your userspace issues in content matters.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I should rephrase my question:
Taking in consideration that ZjarriRrethues:
  1. used a magazine as source ignoring RSN which requested: "don't use the magazine, use his book as the source")
  2. to add "seriously over-simplified" information
  3. not about Vojsava but about her son, Skanderbeg (again ignoring RSN and consensus which emphasized that it is important to avoid WP:SYNTH)
what do you think about such edit of ZjarriRrethues?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Article name

"Voisava Tripalda" (15 r), "Vojsava Tripalda" (4 r), "Voisava Tribalda" (3 r), "Vojsava Tribalda" (0 r); move to Voisava Tripalda.--Zoupan 15:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

Sure... --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft implementation

As nobody disagreed with it, i implemented the draft. --WhiteWriterspeaks 09:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you, at first, because of the deletion og the Bulgarian point of view, together with the added source. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a source for itself. In the original text as Triballi are described the Bulgarians, even in the Serbian source: Bulgari sive Triballi habitant, ferox in armis gens. Please, revert yourself and discuss here. If no, this will be vandalism and I am going to neutralize your POV. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

O, c'mon, you are questioning only one thing. Propose, we will fix it! there is no need to remove everything. Write here, what should we add, and how? --WhiteWriterspeaks 09:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Good initiative btw WhiteWriter, and as far as views regarding her ethnicity/geneaology, Antidiskriminator has created a list of sources on the disputed ethnicity of Skanderbeg that speaks for itself. To present a NPOV, there should be views of all worthy scholarship. I'm expanding the article.--Zoupan 13:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
Sure, no problems now... It is actually incredible how many sources we can find for this... :) --WhiteWriterspeaks 13:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Rewritten article. @Jingi: The basis on Bulgarian origin is Barleti's mention in another chapter: "Superior Dibra montuosa est et aspera, ferax tarnen et Macedoniam tum ipsa loci vicinitate, tum similitudine morum contingens. Bulgari sive Tribali habitant" - referring to the inhabitants of Upper Dibra that defended Svetigrad, he calls them "Bulgarians or Triballi". No need for 5 complementing sources as it is primary.--Zoupan 14:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
I asked for draft to be deleted... It doesn't matter now... --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Genealogy

To WhiteWriter: You wrote 'No'. What do you mean? Also, the genealogy link doesn't lead to anything. That's why I changed it. You need to fix the link. Dirifer (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing, fixed now. We should not mislead reader, he should read article for him self, and conclude. Leave it like this. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine :). Dirifer (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

on george kastiot's slavic origin

albanian national awakening is in 19th ct. so he couldnt be albanian. he wasn't a slav either. kastrioti family are debrani mijaks. that's a tribe with no connection to albanians or slavs and may have aromanian origins or older.

Ridiculous Nixious6 (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

"Tripalda"

As you already know, it is impossible that Voisava had the surname "Tripalda", and obviously severly inaccurate to name her such, as this was a corruption made by Muzaka. The article should therefore be renamed ("Tripalda" omitted).--Zoupan 23:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

I agree. The article should be renamed to Voisava Kastrioti. Her family name was Kastrioti, not Tripalda. Also per consistency criteria of wp:at. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Correction. It is best to learn what Boban Petrovski say about this matter. Petrovski explained that Muzaka did not use Tripalda as Vojsava's surname. In the same text in which he mentioned Tripalda, Muzaka presented her as Voisava Ivani. Petrovski further explains that at that time children of Ivan and Ivan's wife were referred to by their patronym derived from his name - Ivanović. That is why Konstantin Mihailović mentioned Skanderbeg as Skanderbeg Ivanović. To conclude: There are no records of her name being Voisava Tripalda or Voisava Kastrioti. The only record presents her as Voisava Ivani (translation of patronym Ivanović). According to Petrovski, Tripalda is used to denote her Serbian citizenship or ethnicity. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Petrovski is the only scholar who says Voisava's surname wasn't Tripalda. You have to find as many sources as possible to support Petrovski's claims and then we can change article's name.NobleFrog (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course not. Few scholars insisted that Tripalda was her surname. Petrovski used primary sources and works of other scholars in his analysis. Muzaka used Ivani as Vojsava's last name. Not Petrovski. Muzaka's text was translated and analysed by Albanian authors who also presented Vojsava Ivani.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant material

Marin Barleti (1450–1513), the Albanian-Venetian historian, wrote in his biography of Skanderbeg (published between 1508–10), that her "father was a Triballian nobleman". In another chapter, when talking about the inhabitants of Upper Debar that defended Svetigrad, he calls them "Bulgarians or Triballi". However, the term "Triballians" (Triballoi) appears frequently in Byzantine works , referring exclusively to Serbs. Why do some editors insist on adding irrelevant material? It's not important how Byzantine authors called the serbs. Barleti was Venetian.NobleFrog (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@NobleFrog: Could you be a bit clearer? How is it "irrelevant"?--Zoupan 19:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

@Zoupan: The article is about Voisava Tripalda, not about Serbians and their medieval names. Barleti was Venetian and made it clear that Voisava was of Bulgarian origin. So the part that says:However, the term "Triballians" (Triballoi) appears frequently in Byzantine works , referring exclusively to Serbs just confuses the reader.NobleFrog (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is about Voisava, who, by all evidence, was a medieval Serb. If Barleti used "Triballian" (Serb) for her, and "Bulgarian or Triballian" (Slavic/Bulgarian and Serb) for the inhabitants of Debar, she is still "Triballian" (Serb) and not "Bulgarian".--Zoupan 19:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

@Zoupan: There is no medieval source saying she was serb. Barleti said she was Triballian. He also said that inhabitants of Upper Debar that defended Svetigrad were Bulgarians or Triballi. Bulgarians and Triballi are synonyms in this case.NobleFrog (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Barleti explicitly called her Triballian, which was an exonym for Serbs (this is undisputed), and not Bulgarians. There is no medieval source saying she was Bulgarian or Albanian, only that she was "Triballian". His mention of Debar and its inhabitants is irrelevant in this nomenclature; if he meant that she was Bulgarian, he would not use "Triballian", which, again, was used for Serbs.--Zoupan 20:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
The Slavic inhabitants of the region have been known by multiple names. Schmitt says that Voisava came from the ruling class that arrived with the Serb acquisition of the area. They were Serbs. That does not make the local Slavic inhabitants Serbs. Due to the he contested nature of various terms for Slavic people in the area, it should stay, as the identity matter of Slavic people in the area even until 1945 was contested and interchangeable. Reader should get all sides outlined.Resnjari (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@Zoupan: Leave your personal opinions out of Wikipedia. Byzantine authors said that Triballians were Serbs, but Barleti wasn't Byzantine. NobleFrog (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Its not my personal opinion. Barleti is a source just like the Byzantines of the era. What makes one better then the other, or are we choosing sources based on personal opinion. The Slavic identity of people in the area has been contested for a porlonged perioed. That is fact.Resnjari (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Muzaka

It is most unlikely that Voisava descended from the Muzaka. The Muzaka Chronicle only claims that the "Marquis of Tripalda" was maternally related to the Muzaka, and that Voisava was related to these Marquises. We can safely say that Fan Noli and Hodgkinson, which somehow came to the conclusion that she was a Muzaka, are obsolete. We need secondary sources clarifying this whole matter.--Zoupan 23:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

I disagree with you here Zoupan. There are no better sources which say that Voisava was from Muzaka family. All modern and neutral secondary sources connect her with Branković. Muzaka hipothesis should be carefully attributed to Noli and Hodgkinson, without giving wp:undue weight to this hipothesis.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
What I meant was references clarifying that Fan Noli and Hodgkinson base their claims only on the Muzaka Chronicle, not to remove them from the article.--Zoupan 14:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
Sorry, I did not understand you. If Noli and Hodgkinson used citations, secondary sources would not be necessary. Otherwise, you are right. Nevertheless, both were so far from being neutral specialist on the subject, that I don't think there are too their OR hipothesis does not deserve too much weight. I doubt that any serious contemporary scholar would loose much time over what two of them wrote.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree to an extent. However, from another angle, though it has been established that most of those authors regarding the Muzaka bit did not use proper data, as stated in the Wikipedia article, for that it reason should stay. It is because they are the ones who have written about the matter (in English) nonetheless and their removal will in time may result in other editors coming here and saying they need to be included without the extra bits that currently exist in the article today about their research methods in concluding the Muzaka thing. As long as the other stuff remains about how they went about their research, then its ok.Resnjari (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Gjon Muzaka

If Gjon Muzaka claims that the "Marquis of Tripalda" is related to the Muzaka family, what does this have to do with Voisava? This is the quote used in the article; if there is another quote explicitly stating that she was of the Muzaka, this, and not the one about the Marquis, should be added. First of all, the Tripalda was a later noble family in Italy (?). The name "Tripalda" added to Voisava's name by Muzaka is a corruption or derivative from Barleti's quote on the Triballi.--Zoupan 19:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

@Antidiskriminator: Do you have any information on this?--Zoupan 19:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
Interesting point. Here is a link to text of Elsie. It says that Voisava was related to Marquis and that Marquis was related to Muzaka. It does not say that Voisava was related to Muzaka. Connecting Voisava with Muzaka based on this text alone would be WP:SYNTH. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zoupan: Muzaka refers to Voisava Tripalda.[1] Rolandi+ (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.al/books?id=xTvPAAAAMAAJ&q=%22e+venne+da+bona+parte%22&dq=%22e+venne+da+bona+parte%22&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=%22e%20venne%20da%20bona%20parte%22&f=false
That was not my question..? Please read before answering, and do so in a constructive manner; that ref is already in the article. How is it stated or implied that Voisava was a relative to the Muzaka?--Zoupan 20:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
So, to wrap it up: Muzaka mentions that the "Marquis of Tripalda" was maternally related to the Muzaka, nothing about Voisava. The by/surname Tripalda is unrefutably a corruption/derivative of Barleti. The only ones who are claiming a connection between Voisava and the Muzaka are Noli (if I read the quote right) and Hodgkinson. Why they did, I have no idea, but Schmitt interestingly states that "no archival research" was made. Removing the 'unresolved' tag.--Zoupan 23:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

Zoupan please stop with the disruptive edits

Her ethnicity is still a matter of dispute and thus you cannot type that in the infobox. Some sources say she was Albanian and other Slavic. I don't care if you believe the pro-Slavic sources are better and more reliable, that is your opinion. You are only pushing POV. So please stop with the disruptive edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euripides ψ (talk • contribs) 16:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I assure you that the "Albanian theory" is fringe. Please, elaborate on "pro-Slavic sources".--Zoupan 22:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

I do not need to elaborate. They are all in the article itself. Voisava's ethnicity remains still controversial and there is no consensus about her true ethnicity. I think it would be best to leave the "ethnicity" out of the infobox. The article is small yet good as it is. If you keep on with the disruptive edits I will have to report you for WP:DE. Euripides ψ (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Voisava's paternity

I'm going to insert Voisava's paternity; according to Gjon Muzaka, she was the daughter of one "Dominic, alias Moncinus".[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.75.68 (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dominicus alias Moncinus [genuit]: 1. Agnese Andre Angeli mater, & 2. Voisava Ivani uxorem. (Karl Hopf: Chroniques gréco-romanes inédites ou peu connues, Berlin, p. 308). Uxor is Latin for "wife, spouse".

Claim that when Voisava was alive the area was under Bulgarian control.

Can you provide any source supporting this claim? Thanks in advance. Jingiby (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

My bad, I was going to say that before the Ottoman conquest, the Serbian Kingdom, under the rule of Dusan, included Albania, Macedonia and most of mainland Greece. Here is the link that report to the Serbian Kingdoms' page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Empire It is obvious that slavic names were "trendy" at that time, or at least at the time of her parents. For istance, today in the U.S.A, a man of african ethnicity could have an English name. This does not mean that he is of English ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.41.26.105 (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

What you have written is: At that time the zone was under the rule of Bulgarian Empire, hence slavic names were trendy. Jingiby (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'll correct myself. I'm going to report that, before the Ottoman conquest, the Serbian Kingdom, under the rule of Dusan, included Albania, Macedonia and mainland Greece.Do you agree with this statement? JonhDS (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jingiby (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

How can you claim that Albania was not under the control of Serbian Kingdom, before the Ottoman conquest? You can find the sources on this link. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Empire

How can you say that a name is a proof of ethnicity? This is a talk-page. Let's talk. Tell me your arguments. JonhDS (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

At the time she was alive, Serbia was not under Ottoman rule. Your writings are incorrect. Jingiby (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

You've completely misunderstood. What are you talking about? Maybe my English is not the best, but I'm saying that before the Ottoman conquest, Albania, Macedonia and mainland Greece were under the rule of Serbian Kingdom. The same for Vojsava. JonhDS (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I've never said that. JonhDS (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

And, you are not neutral! I linked the Serbian Kingdom's page too. It plainly says that before the Ottoman conquest, Macedonia, Albania and mainland Greece were included on Serbian kingdom. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Empire. Vojsava was born before the Ottoman conquest since she was the mother of Skerderbeu. JonhDS (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

So, it's a fact that slavic name were common. It's the same for Vojsava, because, although she had a slavic name, this is not a proof of her ethnicity. What about all those Albanian thar have lived throughout the history and that had Latin, Greek, Arabic and Turkish names? JonhDS (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Branković dynasty

@PericaPantic: You keep adding a text that says that the Branković origin theory is "disputed". But, does the cited source really say the theory is "disputed"? Can you cite exact sentence from the source that says the theory is disputed? Vanjagenije (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

"Most sources..."

Aleksandar Stankov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding keeps adding the same statement but this doesn't match the article because "most sources" don't support that she was from the Branković or that she was a Serb. I'm not very active in debates about such matters any longer, but the wikipedia community has moved beyond such "disputes". Some modern sources support a Serbian origin and they are mentioned in the article, but they're not the only sources and they're not the majority of sources, so it makes no sense for the article to claim something which isn't a summary of where things stand. My opinion is that it'll never be known because there's no information about it, hence there is no real debate to be had. We can just list different theories and stop there. In any case, it was very normal for nobility to intermarry with other people of their class regardless of a common cultural background.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The sentence he's adding isn't backed up by a source, so it's not even something to debate. He's adding WP:OR.Alltan (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Maleschreiber
Thanks for your stating your opinion. Firstly, I want to elaborate that most sources do in fact support a Serbian origin. There is actually few, or even none, sources that support a non-Serbian origin that isn't speculation. The few scholars who had stated a possbile Albanian origin, such as by Harry Hodgkinson, has been accused of using no archival research by other scholars.
Secondly, If you don't believe the vast majority of the sources explain a Serbian origin, I would advice you to go through them again. More detailed this time. You will see that the sources leading towards an Albanian origin are either just speculation or been stated by an (possible biased) Albanian historican.
Lastly, I want to say that I agree with you that none of the sources gives a conclusion. However, I do believe it's important to elaborate what the vast majority of the scholars work explains, while also having a critical view of writing. This way it works a summary of all the work done on her origins. Aleksandarstankov (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the contemporary sources in the article, three (Petrovski, Schmitt, Elsi) support a Serbian origin, one (Wasilewski) is agnostic, and one possibly supports an origin from the Albanian Muzaka family (Bojovic), although he does not explicitly state she is of Albanian origin. Of the earlier sources, three (Hopf, Miller, Zlatarski) explicitly or implicitly suggest a Serbian origin, while only Noli explicitly supports an Albanian origin, although Hahn does so implicitly. Thus on balance, the statement that most sources support a Serbian origin is backed by the contents of the article. Khirurg (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Vojsava is from polog in medival ages even to this day polog valley is populated by albanians majority i have one friend in polog valley that has albanian orthodox in polog valley plus skanderbeg son married jerina brankovic if youre trying to make her of brankovic or srbin origin 5.206.233.131 (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The only two contemporary sources that mention Vojsava Kastrioti are Marin Barleti and Gjon Muzaka. They say that Vojsava was the daughter of a lesser noble of Pollog named Dominik/Moncino. And Between the years 1348–1353, Albanians are mentioned by Serbian Tsar Stefan Dušan as farmers and soldiers in the district of Tetovo within the Polog region. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Both Marleti and Muzaka hints strongly to a Serbian origin. The term "Triballians" are known for being used to describe Serbs in medival times. Byzantines did it quite often.
Muzaka's own words: "Tribali overo Misii ch' hoggi se nominato Serviani", explaining the connection between Serbs and the term "Triballian". Aleksandarstankov (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Wasilewski

The claim This interpretation is still debatable since there is no mention of her name in the Brankovic family tree. is sourced to Wasilewski (1963) [6], but on closer inspection it is in fact nowhere to be found in that source. The source doesn't even mention Voisava by name, and the family tree is of the descendants of one Jaksic, who died around 1453, long after Voisava. I have thus removed the claim and the source. Khirurg (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Serbian propaganda.

stop ur biased edits. Vojsava was not Serbian name in middle age. Pjetërmargjini (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Per your revert, the wife of Karl Thopia, known as Vojislava Balšić, was from a South Slavic dynasty. The wife's origins might explain why their daughter was also named "Voisava". Besides, it is WP:OFFTOPIC. Albanians adopting Slavic names doesn't make the names any less Slavic, it is quite logical. Regardless, there are sources explaining the name as Slavic. If you wish to contradict it, please precede to use sources. --Azor (talk). 15:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Ultimately the name is Slavic, but that itself is no evidence for her origins. It, at best, shows she was of the Serbian Orthodox Church, like many Serbs and Albanians alike. She could be a Serb with that name, or she could very well be an Albanian with that name. Names are independent from blood and nationality. Dardhani (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voisava_Kastrioti/Archive_4&oldid=1210783805"