Talk:Balšić noble family

@Alltan Hi, why did you remove my edit in origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surix321 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Alltan hasn't raised a TP discussion prior to removing the text. Their justification in the edit history was that the citations are too old. According to WP:AGE MATTERS With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt. I have reinstated the removed text as they do have a place in this article, WP:AGE MATTERS dictates that historical citations should not be removed. This article would prosper if new citations can be added and worked into the text, rather that removing large sections of it. ElderZamzam (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted you. Alltan and nobody else has to actually explain to you why we shouldn't use 1858 and 1923 source. Many editors have explained to you specifically that you shouldn't use WP:OUTDATED sources which don't pass WP:RS by modern standards. If you can find corroboration in modern sources for any claims, add anything you want to the article, but don't use sources which don't meet basic WP:RS. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Who are these many editors? I would love to see these examples as I am not aware of many editors raising concerns that I shouldn't use specifically outdated sources. Or, is this another one of your exaggerations just like when you claimed that cleaning up my work was such a workload for all Wikipedia editors on a "daily basis" [1]? Unlike yourself, I have posted quotes from WP:AGE MATTERS to clearly explain my justification. You have posted a random link to WP:RS which ironically directs to WP:AGE MATTERS. ElderZamzam (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

You can't directly cite Franz Miklosich, a 19th century source or opinions of early 20th century bibliography which isn't extensively used in modern sources. This is the standard way of using sources on wikipedia. If there is any value to older historical theories, it won't be hard for you to find contemporary sources. --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Maleschreiber's concern here. This is a standard practice at Wikipedia. Please conform to it. Çerçok (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

It is getting really ridiculous that some editors who clearly have a Serbian POV-editing history are trying to remove categories about the Albanian origin of the family while at the same time are keeping the Serbian ones. The possibility that the family is of Albanian origin is backed by the reliable sources in the article, so the inclusion of the categories is more than justified. The argument that the Serbian categories are referring to nationality is laughable. Not only is that untrue because the category is also used in articles about ethnic Serbs/Serbians who had no connection to the Kingdom of Serbia, but more importantly, because no member of this family actually ruled over the Kingdom of Serbia. Also, I am pretty sure no members of the family held Serbian passports XD Ahmet Q. (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The family was possibly Albanian or Slavic, hence both categories are justified. Removing the Albanian category but keeping the Serbian one is POV. Alltan (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oliver Jens Schmitt (2021), Herrschaft und Politik in Südosteuropa von 1300 bis 1800, De Gruyter Oldenbourg: Im Küstenland der Zeta errichtete das Geschlecht der Balšić/alb. Balsha unter Balša I. mit seinen Söhnen Georg I., Stracimir und Balša II. (deren ethnische Herkunft: serbisch, albanisch, vlachisch, in der Forschung ebenso umstritten wie unklar und für die Deutung der Entwicklung wenig bedeutsam ist) eine eigene Herrschaft, wobei auch sie Stücke aus Vojnovićs Erbe rissen, so in der Oberzeta (nördliches Montenegro). Der Zar vermochte auch nicht zu verhindern, dass regionale Große über ein Bündnis mit fremden Städten gegen wichtige serbischer Oberhoheit unterstehende Häfen verhandelten, so wie die Balšić mit dem seit 1358 nominell ungarischen Dubrovnik gegen Kotor. Contemporary bibliography always includes both the Slavic and the Albanian name and discusses as plausible both origin theories. It also stresses the fact that their origin played no role whatsoever for the political choices of this feudal family. Keep that in mind before you get into an edit-war about feudal rulers.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry but Oliver Jens Schmitt has simply not researched this topic in depth compared to other Historians like Sir Noel Malcolm. With all respect to the Swiss guy, but it's clear that some of his "books" have a quite Serbian POV - maybe with his bad experience to some Swiss-Albanians (as they are a big group in Switzerland). We should use English speaking researchers and historians for the English article. So does Sir Noel Malcolm name the family as "Balsha" and adds the Serbian way of name as (Balšič). In this article and in all other English speaking articles we see the Serbian version "Balšič". Imho this is simply far from being objective. 2003:DF:573E:12E2:51A2:A709:3CC:C04 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ahmet Q.: Be WP:CIVIL. Your nationalistic edits have been removed. It is quite clear that they were lords under Serbian despotate and Serbian Empire. Which part of that fact is not clear? There are 4-5 theories about their ethnic origin, which is unclear and not that important. We will not classify Balšićs as Vlachs, French people, Aromanian, Slavic-Aromanian, Slav-Vlachs, the same way that we will not clasify their ethnic origin as Albanian, because that is just one theory. That is what the sources say and now might be a good time to move on, considered that you do have history of edit warring on this page in 2021, when 6-7 editors undid your dubious categories. Your last comment shows just how seriously you edit Wikipedia. Вукан Ц (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

• The "Albanian noble families" and "Serbian noble families" cats could be replaced by the "League of Lezhë" (to be created) and "People of the Serbian Empire" cats. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Comment The two admins from Serbian wikipedia will be reported to admins who deal with ARBCOM matters if the edit-war continues. Ktrimi991 removed all categories about "nationality" and they have been transferred to the parent category Balšić noble family. The article will either use all such categories in order to reflect bibliography accurately or it will avoid all of them. It can't get any more NPOV than that. No editor can insist on an article version which includes just one theory among several plausible theories.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

1. I have been active in "the Balšić question" in 2021 and so far I had no idea that a dynasty ruling under 2 Serbian states, a dynasty which first appeared in history under one bona fide Serbian state, "can not" be seen as Serbian. Very peculiar.
2. The category which was removed by Kstrim without any consensus or rational explanation contains familes which ruled under Sebian states or ruled those states.
3. There is a clear distinction between Serb (ethnic group) and Serbian (nationality) in English and some South Slavic languages (srpski/srbijanski).
4. Various opinions have been expressed concerning the origin of the Balšići family. They have been considered of Vlach, Aromanian, Albanian, Serbian, and even French origin.^[1]
5. T.J. Winnifrith writes that the Balšićs were Slavs and that they fought the Albanians and he points out that they "can hardly pass muster as heroic Albanian family".^[2]
6. The first notable Balšić ruler came in power under Emperor Dušan the Mighty and the last Balšić lord ruled under the Serbian Despotate.
7. There is no space for debate whether should they be considered a Serbian family, reagardless if their origin is Vlach, French, Albanian or Aromanian or some other mix.
8. Categories restored, do not edit war. Leageu of Lezhe category can stay. — Ranko Nikolić (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ранко Николић The distinction between nationality and ethnicity is a modern one. There was no such thing as "nationality" in the Middle Ages. You can choose which NPOV route to follow: either both categories or no category, but you can't just pick one and revert to create an article which will include only one category.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes and no. It is not that simple. Numerous groups of people or ethnic groups, like Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, Vlachs and others have been treated as such in state documents from the 14th and the 15th century. Please do not muddy the water with broader intellectual debates.

Let's recap: A dynasty ruling under 2 bona fide Serbian states (once again - Serbian states), according to your "logic" can not be styled Serbian in the lead nor categories, because there are 6 theories about their ethnic origin. Are you serious?

No, that is not WP:NPOV, it's a false dilemma and something looking like a blackmail, very much WP:BULLY. Wonderful POV pushing here. Is that your version of NPOV?. — Ranko Nikolić (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

• What is up to debate among scholars is not only their origin but also their identity. The Balsic have been called an Albanian noble family (not just in origin but in identity too) by scholars such as Galaty, Madgearu and Hösch. Sima Cirkovic has pointed out that in Serbian medieval documents the Balsic are referred to as "Albanian (arbanas) lords". Other families that ruled under the rule of the Serbian Empire or Serbian Despotate such as the Spani family, Dushmani family and Muzaka family do not have a "Serbian nobility" or "Serbian noble families" category. Those categories are for ethnicity, not for being under the Serbian Empire or Serbian Despotate. Hence I left only the "People of the Serbian Empire" category in the article, because it is the only one that does not refer to ethnicity. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Category:14th-century Serbian nobility is about "ethnic origin" of some ruling families? This has to be a joke. A bad one.

Spani family and other families should also be under the same categories.

And Serbian should be in the lead, because they came and disappeared from mainstream history under Serbian states. I see that you have a problem with that as well. Why?

Are the sources directly stating that their identity is Albanian or is that your intepretation? Cirkovic's statement is correct, they did rule north Albania, the same way prince Lazar is seen as a Moravian in some documents.

If there is an ongoing debate why do you keep reverting to the version you prefer? Is this sort of behaviour accepted on English Wikipedia? That is called disruptive editing. And I can see that another editor coming from Albanian POV perspective has removed categories on all Balsic under a false pretense that some "agreement" has been made. — Ranko Nikolić (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Serbian nobility category is used to denote ethnicity, and in modern scholarship the ethnicity of the Balsic/Balsha family is disputed. Therefore, we either include both Serbian and Albanian nobilitiy categories, or none of them.Alltan (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Your reasoning is false. The category and other similiar categories are not about ethnicity. That is absolutely clear. For example see Category:Croatian noble families, which includes several families of Hungarian Italian and other ethnic origin. There is no consensus nor there can be about whitewashing and removal of facts from Wikipedia. MareBG (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

A family that has been described by several scholars as an Albanian noble family will not have the Serbian nobility category without the Albanian noble familes category too. No matter how many accounts from srwiki come to revert, enwiki is based on WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Either both categories or none at all. Lets see which srwiki account is next. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ktrimi, Ćirković didn't label the Balšić family as of Albanian origin rather as Arbanas Lords, maybe because they controlled large swaths of Albanian territory, What do you think? Surix321 (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article says that Ćirković concluded that they are of non-Slavic origin, being referred to in medieval Serbian documents as "Albanian (arbanas) lords". In any case, the article has several scholars who describe the family as Albanian or as having Albanian origin. We as editors just have to present to readers what reliable sources say. Whether the family was Albanian, Slavic or sth else is impossible to tell with certainty. Based on other similiar cases, one can assume that they had some kind of "fluid" identity, far from the stricter way ethnicity is seen today. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be a general agreement that for the origins of the Balsa family we still do not have enough evidence. Nor are there any new serious studies by historians on the matter. However, in the current WP article the name Balšić (and Balša) represents a Slavic POV. I propose to change it to another form. My two proposals would be Balsha, or Balsa. I understand the first one might seem closer to the Albanian one (Balshaj) but we have to keep in mind that the sound sh is written with an h in English as well, not only in Albanian. Furthermore, Balshaj represents the typical Albanian rendering of the name. That is why I would be much more in favor of this solution. The second one, Balsa, though is closer to how the rulers themselves wrote their name (with Latin letters), might be misleading as the s does not represent the same sound as sh that is needed in this case. — Anna Comnena (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agree, Balsha is more appropriate. – Βατο (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

In medieval records from the 16th century onwards (see: Franco, Du Cange, Siebmacher) they are referred to primarily as Balsa. It's the most suitable name to be used in the article – Balsa family (remove the word noble). The slavic version currently used is incompatible with factual history. Kj1595 (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is no such thing as "factual history" in the methodology of historiography, since history is by definition based on narratives which don't reflect "just facts". For the name of this family, what Du Cange or any other western European author who lived hundreds of years after the 15th century wrote is irrelevant. There are many documents in Slavic from the era they lived in and an equal number of sources from the Republic of Ragusa in Latin. The names Balšić and Balsha are the only historical names for this family. "Balsa" is something produced in a western European context because Latin sources of the era often didn't distinguish /s/ from /sh/. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Maleschreiber,

we need an objective person here who can support on this project. In English the family is named by the English term. I read for instance Noel Malcolm, the family name is never even mentioned as Balsic. It's Balsha and the author also claims that there are different theory. But the name of the family is Balsha in English literary. Just like we call the city in Bavaria not München but Munich, or Bavaria instead of Bayern actually. But I think this should be also done with some kind of power, by someone who can be trusted or seen as a "neutral" force in this "game". Otherwise it will end in a POV ethnic edit-war.

What's your take on this? ECasio (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree, can we simply start to implement this change and have a central guideline for that? ECasio (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

From what I see now, if we want to change the name of this page we would need to change other pages that use the same form for the name. Maybe we would need to ask the same question in each of these pages? What do you think would be the most apropriate way to go on with this? - 10:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Anna Comnena (talk)

@Βατο: Why did you remove the coat of arms giving the strange explanation "no historical value"?? The coat of arms derives from the medieval Fojnica Armorial which as a source is the textbook definition of "historical value". Kj1595 (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Editors should explain why they are removing the description "Albanian noble family" from the lead despite the fact that it is exactly the description that contemporary medieval sources expressly provide for this family and its members, as well as the description provided by present day historians in mainstream scholarship. The speculative opinions about the distant origin of the family's progenitor are irrelevant in this matter. – Βατο (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. I have seen no valid ground to not include this passage in the lead. The Balšić are viewed as Albanian lords in mainstream sources, why shouldn't Wikipedia do so? I do not want to speculate but I think this is a crystal-clear case of WP:IDL. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Βατο: No, the onus is on you to justify why the family should be called "Albanian" in WP:WIKIVOICE when multiple reliable sources clearly state their origins are disputed and/or unclear and the previous wording was WP:STABLE for ages. Under such circumstances, the correct course of action is to take a nuanced approach and reflect what the sources say, not WP:CHERRYPICK certain sources whilst ignoring others. Even a cursory Google search produces results such as this:

• Roberts, Elizabeth (2007), Realm of the Black Mountain: A History of Montenegro, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, p. 73, ISBN 978-0-80144-601-6, Who exactly the Balšići were and where they had come from is far from clear. The story that they were descended from a son of Bertrand de Baux who was said to have settled in Albania after fighting on the side of Charles of Anjou when he seized the kingdom of Naples, is disputed. Most writers follow Francis Seymour Stevenson's dismissal of the claim while a more recent work by two Montenegrin historians seeks to reassert it. But whether the Balšići were of Serb or Albanian origin, or perhaps something in between such as Serbo-Albanian or even Vlach has never been conclusively established. Among the aristocracy of the various Balkan principalities, the importance of constructing wide-ranging dynastic alliances meant that mixed marriages were common during much of the medieval period. Although they were doubtless less so among the common people and the petty nobility from which the Balšići seem to have emerged, similar ways of life, fluctuating religious affiliation and the highly porous borders all helped to blur the distinction between Serb and Albanian in these western lands. Whatever his origins, Balša and his sons were 'culturally Serbianized'.
• Djukanovic, Bojka (2023), Historical Dictionary of Montenegro, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, p. 32, The Balšićs were a Montenegrin medieval noble family that ruled "Zeta and the coastlands" (southern Montenegro and northern Albania) from 1632 to 1421. There are no reliable sources about their origin.

The fact that you outright ignored such sources in your recent edits and consciously chose to insert such a contentious claim in wikivoice is concerning and bordering on tendentious. Thus, I would encourage you to read WP:NPOV and WP:CHERRYPICKING. Yes, you've included multiple sources that describe the family as "Albanian" in passing. But by that same token, there are plenty of sources that, likewise in passing, describe the family as Serbian [2] or Montenegrin [3] Therefore, describing the family as "Albanian" in the lead is hardly justified, as is saying "most historians" agree they were of Albanian origin, which you did here . I will remind you that WP:RS/AC says: "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Merely sticking a bunch of sources together which describe them as Albanian in passing and saying "most historians" is not sufficient to justify such a statement. Lee, Lubin & Ndreca 2013, p. 46. makes no mention of "most historians", nor do Tafilica, Baze & Lafe 2023, p. 74, nor Ivetic 2022, p. 25, nor Schmitt 2020, p. 18, nor Molla 2017, p. 211. I haven't been able to access Muhadri, Muhaj, Campobasso and Vaccaro, but given that the other sources failed WP:V my hopes aren't exactly high. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The argument based on the existence of different speculative opinions about the distant origin of the progenitor is useless, and even more useless is the 'culturally Serbianized' info provided by one source you selected. What matters for the description of this family in WP:WIKIVOICE is the historical fact that contemporary medieval sources expressly describe the family and its members as "Albanian", a fact that is widely accepted in current mainstream scholarship. You failed to provide a proper explanation. As for WP:RS/AC and WP:CHERRYPICKING, read first bibliography, then comment. – Βατο (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

As far as WP:RS/AC, the only source that explicitly states that "most historians" consider them Albanians is Muhadri, who may well be biased. After all, Tim Judah explicitly states that "both Serbian and Albanian authors claim them, but it is most likely that they were intermarried" [4]. On the other hand, Roberts explicitly contradicts this. The argument that Roberts is "useless" is based on nothing, and the argument What matters for the description of this family in WP:WIKIVOICE is the historical fact that contemporary medieval sources expressly describe the family and its members as "Albanian" is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. Modern secondary sources, such as Elizabeth Roberts take precedence over "contemporary medieval sources", which fall under WP:PRIMARY. Khirurg (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

You have not provided academic statements that contradict Muhadri 2020, your personal opinion about the academic source and your WP:ASPERSIONS against the historian are disruptive and you should avoid it as per WP:BLP. Roberts (2007) does not contradict what Muhadri (2020) reports, because Roberts (2007) deals with the origins and their culture (which btw should not be limited solely to Robert's opinion), and not about their actual description by the contemporary testimonies of Balsha family's time. As for WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY, being an experienced editor you should have understood the meaning of the WP policy: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Many historians like Muhadri, Prifti and Ćirković provide them. But it seems you haven't even read bibliography. – Βατο (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Roberts and Judah explicitly contradict Muhadri, and Muhadri is not even close to the level of Roberts and Judah. You are using an obscure source to push ethno-nationalist POV and then have the nerve to accuse of "not reading the bibliography". Khirurg (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Again with the "obscure source" argument? You have already used it in the past and it did not work. Muhadri (2020) is an academic paper entirely focused on the Balsha family. The sources you added (which btw were published a decade and a half ago) just mention the family without analysing all primary material / medieval documents available so far, and they are just two or three of many others, but above all they do not contradict what Muhadri (2020) says: "now more foreign researches describe them as Albanian", which can easly be seen by the multitude of the recent academic sources cited into the article. If you dobut its reliability, take it to the WP:RSN. Regarding your addition at the beginning of the section of selected single opinions that are not accepted by other scholars, it is WP:POV and can't stay. There is a subsection below which includes single opinions not shared by other scholars. – Βατο (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

That whole section you created out of thin air is entirely POV, it just repeats the same thing over and over, using poor quality POV sources. Yes, I consider Muhadri is a poor quality source and I stand by that. He works is affiliated with the "Ali Hadri Institute" [5] [6], and he does not have a single English language publication. And that's the only source you have for the "most historians" claim, which you repeat over and over in the article multiple times. It seems that section you created at the top of the "Origin" section is just for the purpose of repeating the same thing over and over. Khirurg (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what Muhadri's work is affiliated with, I cited the source Muhadri (2020) as a paper published in a scientific journal, Studime Historike. Anyway, the statements of that source are not unreliable opinions, because it just reports the evidence provided by contemporary medieval documents, as does Serbian hisorian Sima Ćirković too, who states the same things as Muhadri and provides similar conclusions. I see you now completely blanked content that is based on multiple reliable sources without even giving reasonable arguments. – Βατο (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I reverted Khirurg because content blanking and removal of all sources can't be justified because of disagreement about one source. It's unjustifiable to remove sources all of which are RS - in fact, most of them are published by international academic publishing houses by invoking as an argument that a single source which was published in an Albanian journal for some reason is not RS. Muhadri (2020) is published in Studime Historike which is published by the Academy of Sciences of Albania and no paper from this journal will be removed without RSN. Sima Ćirković does indeed argue for exactly the same statement as Muhadri (2020): U tom svetlu ja ne mogu osporavati albanskim istoričarima da se bave Balšićima, koji su očigledno neslovenskog porekla, koji su u svim periodima gospodarili i delovima nesumnjivo albanske teritorije, i koje su srpski srednjovekovni izvori nazivali “arbanaškom gospodom”. Za mene je sasvim razumljivo da se Balšići javljaju i u perspektivi albanske i u perspektivi srpske istorije. [In this light, I cannot challenge Albanian historians to deal with the Balšićs, who are obviously of non-Slavic origin, who in all periods ruled over parts of undoubtedly Albanian territory, and whom Serbian medieval sources called "Albanian lords". For me, it is quite understandable that the Balšićs appear both in the perspective of Albanian and in the perspective of Serbian history.] --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Cirkovic does not at all agree with Muhadri's claim that Therefore, now more foreign scholars, and the totality of Albanian scholars, have rightly described the Balshaj as Albanian.". Muhadri's claim is much stronger, and Cirkovic does not actually endorse the view that they were of Albanian origin, only that they were non-Slavic. I also noticed another problematic source, The Truth on Kosova, published in 1993 during the height of the Yugoslav Wars. There is no way this can be considered a reliable source. The mere fact that it has "Truth" in its title is a red flag (WP:TRUTH), all the more so considering it was published during wartime. We cannot build an encyclopedia using sources like this. Khirurg (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Regarding Muhadri, he apparently recently published a two-page article in a Kosovo newspaper [7]] in which he claimed that the Serbian Orthodox monuments in Kosovo are not Serbian at all, but rather were "usurped" Albanian churches, clearly a WP:FRINGE position, convincingly refuted here [8]. While this is not directly related to the topic of the article, it does highlight the need to use only high quality sources, especially for disputed claims. Khirurg (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Muhadri's publications on contested subject should be removed asap. No scholar or editor or a honestly religious person can accept his abuse of history and science in the interest of daily politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.220.230.153 (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello AzorzaI, thank you for providing the quotes. I added the tag {{qn}} because the current quotes: Šekularac, Božidar (1987). Dukljansko-Zetske Povelje. p. 173. "... у присуству Божијем и Пресвете Богородице, за молитву светих предака мојих Симеона Немање и Светог Саве" (p. 173-174) and "У овој повељи Ђурђа помиње своје претке Немању и Саву, а себе доводи у везу са .." (p. 177) do not mention Balša II, but only Đurađ. If the source also mentions Balša II, add it, please. Also a quote about which Đurađ the source is referring to, would be useful. – Βατο (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Next time be more specific with your reverts. If it is the specific individuals you are wondering about, that will require you to investigate the source. It is a heavy source (which I haven't had time to read all of myself) which is based on the three brothers: Balsha II, Stracimir and Đurađ I, which is understood by reading the overall context of several pages. For example, "Дуард Балшић је такође следио пример своје старије браће и 27. јануара 1386. године потписао је повељу Дубровчанима" (p. 173) explains Đurađ I following his brothers footsteps by writing a testimony. --Azor (talk). 17:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Allegedly, all three brothers revolved their testimony about being descendants of the Nemanjic dynasty, among other historical events. Althought in depth, I have only been able to isolate Đurađ I's testimony and Balša II's to lesser degree, and I am yet to find Stracimir's. I expect to improve, and hopefully expand, the content in the following time. --Azor (talk). 18:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I removed a 1923 encyclopedia added as a source by Azor[9] and I reinstated the qn tag. Azor just has to add the full quote. The cited quote seems to a misrepresentation IMO as this is a formulaic religious statement (in the presence of God and the Holy Mother of God, for the prayer of my holy ancestors Simeon Nemanja and Saint Sava) which accompanied many documents of this era, but it's clear that none of these people actually claimed to be descended from the Nemanjići. They claimed state continuity to further their claims which is very different from the statement that the Balsha claimed to be real, living descendants of this dynasty.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

After some research i think references from Božidar Šekularac are not realiable sources as the author is known for forgery in the past. [[10]] RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this is a significant accusation. I've removed the source and cn tagged the statement. There must be other more reliable which discuss this subject.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Prof. Ivetic is not mentioning Albanians or Balsics, on page 25. I just checked. Chapter I present general data on contemporary countries and people living in the region, its climate, agriculture, general traditions and the like. On the page 25 he wirtes about the climate and olives, there is no word about Albanian pirates like one editor claimed.

• Ivetic, Egidio (2022). History of the Adriatic: A Sea and Its Civilization. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781509552535.

178.220.230.153 (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I was able to verify the statement in the article. AlexBachmann (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I removed poor quality content added by User:Amanuensis Balkanicus. The unclear origin of the progenitor of the family, despite the fact that his descendants are all described as Albanians in their time, should not be used to push every WP:FRINGE information into the article. Scholarship is divided between an Albanian or Serbian origin, the former being apparently predominant, especially because supported by contemporary medieval documents. Numismatist Baker mentions this family in passing, without even providing evidence or citation for an out of context statement: The Balsha (Balšić) dynasty, which emerged from the Komnenos Asen family, then ruled the area from Valona for a few decades, but was itself under great pressure when the Ottomans pushed through towards the Adriatic in the 1380s. The Balsha did not originate from the Komnenos Asen family, that is an ahistorical information. One of the latest members of the family, Ruđina Balšić was factually daughter of the Albanian lord Balsha II, and allegedly daughter of Komnena Asen, the latter being the daughter of John Komnenos Asen. Nevertheless, many present-day reliable sources report that Ruđina's mother was a member of the Muzaka family. – Βατο (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply