Talk:Bratonožići

A question

@Maleschreiber: Could you please tell me why did you remove the 18th century part with this edit [1] with WP:AGEMATTERS as an argument, considering that the content is based on which was republished in 1981 by the University of Michigan? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: Yes, I should have written something about that too in the summary. I removed it because it's a really pointless POV argument from that whole cycle of 1980s debates about Montenegrin ethnicity. Fact of the matter is, I can find three more books from the same era that interpret the same events in the opposite way in favor of a distinct Montenegrin ethnicity. I could also use the 2017 volume from the Doclean Academy of Sciences and Arts to frame the ethnicity issue in terms of modern Montenegrin discourse about slavicization & autochthony. I chose not to do any of those things, because if I did that I wouldn't be including any archival research or even archival interpretation, but political essays. I don't think that this is the place to discuss the complexities of the emergence of ethnic identity. Instead, I chose to give all aspects of the ways in which the people from Bratonožići have identified from the 19th century to now. Is there anything on the lead that you consider to not be representative of the range of identities the Bratonožići have assumed?--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: My point wasn't that Bratonožići are a part of ethnic group A or ethnic group B (I know some clan members personally, and they are indeed deeply divided), but that there are sources to follow on their self-identification before the 19th century, such as that one. Sure, and I have several conflicting sources in my library as well. DANU is mostly partisan. Regardless, current version is mostly per facts. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: You're talking about Jovan Radonjić's correspondence. There are many ways that different Yugoslav schools have interpreted it. Špiro Kulišić has dedicated entire chapters to deconstruct the outlook espoused by Vukčević. Why don't you write about these interpretations in the articles about Montenegrin ethnicity, tribes and nationalism? If we did it here, we would end up writing a couple of sentences - after a long discussion - in a format of "these many interpret Radonjić in X manner, that many in Y manner" and 4-5 sources in a row. I think that it's out of the scope of what this article is trying to convey. --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I saw one of the sources listed as Marko Miljanov. He published his works late 19th century. The removal of that source, as per WP:AGEMATTERS is warranted. On the other stuff, if its from the era of Serb historiography in the 1980s, definitely caution needs to be exercised, due to nationalism and other issues.Resnjari (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Marko didn't even try to write a historical work. His book is basically a collection of stories he remembered from Bratonožići. Its value has to do with what it reveals about its author and his era. In one instance, he writes something to the effect of "yeah, well they liked to brag that they the came from Brankovic and we laughed at them and told them that we come from Skanderbeg". This little bit of quipping between neighbouring tribes that in the past also were in a blood feud had made it into the article as "It was said that the Bratonožići were of better blood, descending from Despot Đurađ, than the Drekalović (of Kuči), descending from Skanderbeg". That is one very impressive level of not understanding the source material.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of links, excerpts and translations.

Deletion of links, excerpts and translations.

Hello, I have recently added excerpts from Jovan Erdeljanovićs book, translated them and added a link to an online version of the book so my translation can be checked. User Ahmet_Q. (talk · contribs) speedily deleted it all, claiming it was not improvement and that I have deleted rs, which I have not.

He also claims that Erdeljanovićs Bratonožići, pleme u Crnogorskim brdima. is non-rs, which is an odd claim because the book focuses on the Bratonožići tribe. The book is avalable online for examination, unlike some of the literature used in this article.

I am hoping for a good resolution and to avoid eddit warring.

Cheers!

LjaljaMM18 (9th of June, 2021) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LjaljaMM18 (talk • contribs)

Hi, first do not forget to sign your comments. Read WP:Sign. You removed sourced content, and added content that was either unsourced or sourced to apparently outdated sources. If we have recent sources, it is hard to counter what they say with sources published several decades ago. Read WP:AGE MATTERS. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

And another account removed what bibliography discusses and replaced it with a personal reflection on the history of this community. I think that the root of the problem is that in the Balkans it is often thought that identities never change. In the 17th century, its contempoaries wrote about this community that soon they should be called Slavs, rather than Albanians. And they are a Slavic community today. What they were 400 years ago, doesn't delegitimize their current - collective and personal - identities.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Albanian Origin

@Boki As per MOS:LEAD, the fact that the tribe is of Albanian origin (which is very clearly explained and described in the article) is integral to their existence and an important contextual fact. As such, it should be included within the first line of the lead. Botushali (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, check what I wrote on the Piper page. Bratonožići were more Albanians than Piperi, but again, they were mixed. Saying that their "Albanian origin" is "integral" to their existence does not mean anything. Boki (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it's "integral" in some form of essentialism. I'm saying that the WP:LEAD summarizes the rest of the article, so it should have a mention about the Albanian origin. The quickest way to summarize it is to just add in the first sentence "of Albanian origin". It's not stopping anyone from expanding it to write about their Shtokavian sub-dialects or other matters which don't have to do with Albanians. Botushali (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Help with content

Since the page is closed until the next month, if someone can please add the following if possible. In the monography book about the tribe it states the following: Mihailo Ilich states the following: Men wore a long dress that went to the calves of the legs... The hat was made from wool or leather until it was banned by Knjaz Danilo. The Women wore Xhubleta... ;and so on. The Book in question is: BRATONOŽIĆI KROZ ISTORIJU (monografija), 2014. page.81 Milorad Milo Marković. The book cannot be found online in pdf form, but i have the physical form so i can perhaps provide a photo of the page and the book.

@79.140.150.110: That would be great. You can upload the photograph - if it was produced over 70 years ago - at Wikimedia Commons.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Archival reports

Xhufi (2011) describes what archival sources reported about this community. He's not proposing a new theory. He's reporting that the people who bore this name in this specific era were previously Albanian Catholics who were rapidly converting to Slavic Orthodoxy and were becoming Slavic-speakers. Hence I have partially reverted some edits by Krisitor.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not, Xhufi gives his own interpretation of a primary source. Regarding the other source, Pavlovic, does not say that Bratonozici were Catholics. I managed to get it, verified its content and found that what it says wasn't corresponding to the WP article. Krisitor (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

To be more precise, Pavlović states that the Bratonožići were Slavic-speaking Orthodox, that some of them converted to Catholicism by intermarrying with Albanian tribes and that Rufim Njeguš succeeded in converting them back to Orthodoxy in the early 17th century. This event was used in 19th-century Serbian national-romantic historiography, which is why Pavlović wrote about it. Krisitor (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Pavlović doesn't state anything about their origins and and what you're attributing to Pavlović is a quote by Sima Milutinović Sarajlija. This is what you wrote in the article when you changed the citation. It is certain that the process of conversion is the opposite otherwise Franciscan monks who visited them wouldn't report back to Rome that "soon they should be called Slavs (Schiavoni), rather than Albanians (Albanesi)". This is what Xhufi is describing. It's not a modern narrative.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Pavlović is indeed quoting Sarajlija, who is part of the 19th Serbian national-romantic historiography I was talking about. And indeed, Pavlović does not say anything about the origin of the Bratonožići but what Pavlović says is quite explicit regarding the fact that Bratonožići were "returned" to Orthodoxy. So he certainly can't remain as a reference saying that "Bratonožići were Albanian and Catholic". Why would you disagree with that? Krisitor (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991 and @Maleschreiber, I see that we came to a temporary consensus so I'm OK with Ktrimi's last edit. And although I must add that I don't agree with the way the Franciscan primary source is used, I don't have time to discuss it at the moment and contrary to what you might think, it was not my intention to challenge this part for now. Krisitor (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)