Talk:Voisava Kastrioti

Miss-understanding of Hopf's Chroniques gréco-romanes 1873.

Only the pages from 272 to 302 are Giovanni's (Gjon Muzaka's); the other pages are from a confused genealogy by one Andrea Angelo Comneno and a fragment of Spanduginos' History, which Giovanni's son Costantino reproduces, cf. Chroniques gréco-romanes, 1873, p. XXXV. Also page 313 quotes Pope Pius; so Gjon Muzaka does not say "Tribali overo Misii ch hoggi se nominano Serviani"! @Maleschreiber, @AzorzaI, @ShockedSkater. Ungjited (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Voisava Castrioti, née Musachi (the article is in Albanian)

[1] ShockedSkater (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Most Scholars?

Hi @AzorzaI, please point out which source says "most scholars" and remember to include a quote. As far as I can see, the next reference after that claim is cited to Noli, who wrote his work in 1947. Is there a recent source which states that most 21st century or late 20th century scholars consider her to be of Slavic origin? If not, such a statement is not supported by sources and should be changed. Botushali (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you changing 'most' to 'many' because you have a source that specifically uses 'many'? --Azor (talk). 13:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@AzorzaI Where is the source where it states that "Most scholars" I'm very confused where you got that information from. As well as why are you switching the question up on Botushali when he asked you the question? Arberian2444 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The current version has been stable for a year and was built through comprehensive discussions (4/10/23) among editors, considering a variety of sources rather than any single one. The version you support has not been previously discussed or substantiated by any specific source, as far as I can tell, which is why I asked. --Azor (talk). 18:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That was not my question or my concern. If you cannot provide a source which supports the wording of “most scholars”, then it needs to be changed. Just because a version that has an error has been long-standing, doesn’t mean it can’t be altered. You know very well that “stable version” is not a valid reason for RV’s, and I’m pretty certain an admin has warned you of that in the past. If you cannot provide a source that supports the current wording, I will be changing it again. Botushali (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you changing 'most' to 'many' because you have a source that specifically uses 'many'? - ok, no worries, we can change it to “some scholars” since there is no source that says “most” or “many”. Meanwhile, the article has some sources listed which support a Slavic origin, although not enough to say “most” or “many”. Botushali (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The wording "most" is not an unsupported claim because it does not fall under the category of "phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint". In this article, all available sources, both early and modern, are presented to the readers. This ensures that the reader has the opportunity to assess the sources of the different viewpoints presented. Therefore, the wording "most" does not require an additional source. Definition of most: the biggest number or amount of; more than anything or anyone else. In previous discussions, editors examined various sources and concluded that the majority supported a South Slavic origin. --Azor (talk). 09:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@AzorzaI: that's not how Wikipedia works. The word most can be used only if a reliable source uses it as per WP:SUBSTANTIATE: "Most people think" is acceptable only when supported by at least one published survey. I have experienced several content disputes about such cases, and if a source does not support that specific strong wording, then it cannot be used. In this case the content can be neutrally reworded without original research as a number of scholars. – Βατο (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Βατο Thank you for your input. However, you are addressing a different guideline. WP:SUBSTANTIATE deals with opinions. The word 'most' is not an opinion but a factual summary of the article's content, supported by the positions of the sources cited in the article, as extensively debated in prior discussions covering each source in the article. If there were additional updated sources to support the Muzaka origin, it would indeed challenge the use of 'most.' However, as it stands, 'most' accurately reflects the majority of the sources. The correct guideline is MOS:WEASEL which provides no indication that 'most' is a weasel word.

In essence, the requirement for published surveys applies to discussions of opinions, not to the wording used to summarize the article for readers. For instance, if you have four apples - three red and one green - it is not an opinion to state that the majority of the apples are red. There would be no need for a published survey to support this factual statement. However, claiming that all apples in every household are mostly red could be an opinion requiring such survey-based support. To clarify this distinction, I have expanded the wording to prevent confusion among readers. --Azor (talk). 12:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

In all my time on Wikipedia, I have never once seen an article say “most scholars referenced on this article support x”. This article is not the topic of discussion, whereas Voisava is. I count four editors who do not support the way it was worded, and I too endorse Bato’s neutral wording of “a number of scholars”. Botushali (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Reverting me on the basis of "4v1" logic is not how Wikipedia works. --Azor (talk). 11:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I reverted you because you don’t have a source that says “most scholars”. If you wish to continue edit-warring against multiple editors who have the same issue with your unsourced personal preferences regarding word choice, feel free to do so. Botushali (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Nationality

@Ktrimi991 In medieval times, nationality was linked to family names and local culture rather than modern concepts. The author uses "nationality" to stress that a name alone does not define family background or ethnicity. While Voisava's name might suggest Serbian ethnicity, "nationality" better reflects legal status. For instance, by using Voisava Thopia's father, Karl Thopia, as an example, the author illustrates that medieval nationality was tied to paternal lineage and legal status. The oversight of her mother, Vojislava Balsic, underscores the importance of paternal lineage. Therefore, the author’s use of "nationality" is accurate and should not be altered based on modern or personal interpretations.

To simplify with an example: although medieval noble Albanians might have used Slavic names, this was typically seen among those who had been assimilated or heavily influenced by Slavic culture, indicating a Slavic-leaning ethnicity. However, their nationality - reflecting the legal status inherited from their lands - would remain Albanian. Ethnicity is more than just descent and is more complex than some might think. "Simplifying" it for readers, if that's your aim, could do more harm than good. --Azor (talk). 20:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Nationality as an identity concept belongs to modern times, when nation states were created. Even then, it is hard to point where it is different from ethnicity. To simplify with an example: although medieval noble Albanians might have used Slavic names, this was typically seen among those who had been assimilated or heavily influenced by Slavic culture, indicating a Slavic-leaning ethnicity. Unless you have a reliable, academic source for that, it is your own conclusion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)