Talk:Mataruge

You plan editing the article?

Hi Antidiskriminator,

you make some very powerful assertions with a few short sentences. I understand it is not original research, it comes from the Serbian Academy of Sciences, but stand back a little and read again what you try to pass here:

• You mention the "ancient tribes of Balkans" like they were a separate entity from what we know so far. Were they Illyrians, Thracs, Dacians, Greeks? What were they?

• It is assumed that ancient tribes of Balkans were already completely or partially Romanized before Slavs overwhelmed them at the end of the 6th century - how do the Serbian academics know that? Needless to say, the whole idea is elementary mathematics: This puts the Albanians (and Albanian language) out of the picture. If the Servs found some Latinized population there, then the Albanians must have appeared later. Simple deduction, Serbs are more ancient in the Balkans then the Albanians. Who knows what Milan Šufflay would say in this case...

• With Ottoman advance in their region, Kriči, together with other ancient tribes from Balkans such as Mataruge and Macure, migrated from Montenegro to west and north-west - now we jump to the 14-15th century. So, these "ancient tribes of Balkans" have been present until that time?! How is it no one mentions them?

I think you have done much more neutral articles that this one (and the Kriči one - similarly). --Mondiad (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Please read very carefully: Slavs are more ancient in the Balkans than Albanians. First Albanians were noticed in the Balkans some 500 years later. There is a scientific consensus about it. Now, if you expect me Mondiad to misuse wikipedia for the promotion of outdated myths of Albanian nationalism (such as Albanians=Illyrians), forged to promote different expansionistic purposes, you should look further.
• Your question from the title of this section imply that you have an intention to Albanize this ancient tribe. No doubt I was right that your "everybody are Albanians" editing pattern will continue until somebody stops you. No doubt you know that modern scholarship does not accept Albanian-Illyrian hypothesis and that modern reliable sources advance theory that Albanians descend from tribes from modern-day Romania who imigrated to Balkans at the end of the medieval period. Any attempt to Albanize this ancient tribe would be a blatant and intentional violation of WP:NPOV.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Instead of fantasizing about "the enemy" and "how someone should stop the enemy", I would suggest in a very friendly way to see if you can bring the article in a more neutral shape. Also, the thesis from the Serbian Academy of Sciences have produced enough hatred and conflicts in the area. There is a scientific consensus about that too.

As for your theories, Resnjari below has said enough. No one ever mentioned and migration that brought the Albanians into the Balkans. (there is a scientific consensus for that too). But if you say that the Serbians were in the Balkans before the Albanians, go for it.

It is almost funny how 3 dry sentences try to imply serious Balkanic topics with clear WP:COATRACK. And the theory of "the Ottomans who pushed away the ancient Balkanic tribes" in the 15th century is the cherry on top.--Mondiad (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

"Slavs are more ancient in the Balkans than Albanians. First Albanians were noticed in the Balkans some 500 years later. There is a scientific consensus about it."

"No doubt you know that modern scholarship does not accept Albanian-Illyrian hypothesis and that modern reliable sources advance theory that Albanians descend from tribes from modern-day Romania who imigrated to Balkans at the end of the medieval period."

Anti, you know very well that has been contested in non-Balkan scholarship and subject to academic research. The Dacian hypothesis has been challenged. On Wikipedia, in case you have missed it, there is an article that presents the views of various scholars regarding the origin of the Albanians. So don't POV push with original research >Wp:original. In the article you have cited authors such as Jovan Cvijic. This Serb academic whose works have been examined by outside scholars are on the whole politically charged. He formed is ideas (p.200 [1]) from the (now) discredited works of Spiridon Gocpcevic [2] who advanced the ideas of the Arnautaš theory or "Albanized Slavs", Cvijic constantly changed is scholarship to fit the political needs of Serbia and its interests (pp.236-238. [3]). Cvijic was also known do harbour racist views toward Albanian people. See:

>Stefanović, Djordje (2005). "Seeing the Albanians through Serbian eyes: The Inventors of the Tradition of Intolerance and their Critics, 1804-1939." European History Quarterly'. 35. (3): 472. “Officials of the Serbian Ministry of Foreign affairs described Albanians as a ‘wild tribe’ with ‘cruel instincts’…. A number of Serbian intellectuals and journalists added to the angry hate propaganda that seemed to culminate during the preparations for the Balkan Wars. Cvijić argued that ‘there is a general consensus that the Albanians are the most barbarous tribes of Europe’. Another intellectual described the Albanians as ‘European Indians’ and ‘lazy savages’.”

Drawing upon Cvijic as a "neutral" scholar is problematic to say the least and does not meet Wikipedia standards for being a WP:reliable source. That said, since you refer to Mondiad's concerns as "outdated myths of Albanian nationalism (such as Albanians=Illyrians), forged to promote different expansionistic purposes, you should look further" and "an intention to Albanize this ancient tribe." based on original research, i will clear up a few things here. Yugoslav research regarding groups such as the Mataruge and Mataguzi acknowledge that there is a Albanian and or Vlach origin/component to these groups originating out a a Illyrian-Roman symbiosis-origin. For example

>Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, Volumes 1-2: Naučno društvo Bosne i Hercegovine, 1965: p.145: [4] "su »nesumnjivo nasleđena od starih plemena ilirsko-romanskih starose- delaca Vlaha ili Arbanasa, kao npr. današnja plemena Kuci, možda Bratonožići, Sotondći, Paštrovići i dr., i negdašnja imena Mataguži, Ma- taruge, Bukumiri i dr.«224. [are »"no doubt inherited from ancient Illyrian tribes-the Roman old dwellers- part Vlach or Albanians, for example. Today's tribe Kuci, perhaps Bratonožići, Sotondći, Paštrovići etc., and former names Mataguži, Ma- taruge, Bukumiri and others. «224.]"

>Radovi odjeljenje društvenih nauka, Book 22: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, 1983: p. 95. [5] "Pojedine istaknute družine su, po etničkom poreklu svog jezgra i, nesumnjivo, pretežnog dela svog sastava, bile arbanaske (Tuzi, Hoti, Mataguži, Pamalioti, Tronsi (Trompsi), Krampsi, Mogulsi, Bitidosi i drugi), a Arbanasi su, bar u staroj srpskoj državi, imali isti, ili približno isti, društveni položaj kakv su imali i Vlasi. [Some prominent families were, by ethnicity of its core and, undoubtedly, the substantial part of their composition, were Albanian (Tuzi, Hoti, Mataguži, Pamalioti, Tronsi (Trompsi), Krampsi, Mogulsi, Bitidosi i drugi) and Albanian, at least in the old Serbian state would have the same, or nearly the same, the social position they were at and with Vlachs too.]"

Now what are we to make of this Anti? That these Yugoslav sources both originating from academic publications in Bosnia from a time (1960s and early 1980s) before ethnic polarization occurred (at least amongst Slav peoples) is pushing a pro Albanian line ? Or are they "Albanianizing or Romanizing" this tribe ? I am interested in your views regarding this considering that the sources you have placed in the article contained no line citations (so we have to take your word for it that what you have written is right). You use problematic scholars like Cvijic whose works especially in relation to Albanians contain bias (amongst other things), you have ignored Western peer reviewed research by Kaser who out of all scholarship used in the article meets Wp:reliable and discusses a mixed Albanian-Vlach symbiosis for such people. Now with that all covered, i will remind you Anti of Wikipedia policy > WP:civil when dealing with other editors as Mondiad who has raised legitimate concerns and significant issues and all your replies have been based on original research and so on. My advice to you is to base yourself on peer reviewed research.Resnjari (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You two again Resnjari and Mondiad? Together again to promote "everybody are Albanians" POV based on outdated myths of Albanian nationalism (such as Albanians=Illyrians)? This article clearly explains non-Slavic origin of this people without giving undue weight to any hypothesis. Please don't expect me to do your job and push your "everybody are Albanians" POV. You just do your job.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Once again Antidiskriminator, i remind you of Wikipedia policy >Wp:civil. Comments such as "You two again" go against the spirit of being civil and of good faith > wp:good faith. I have placed reliable sources in the talkpage and you are being dismissive about it. In light of the peer reviewed material i am still trying to work out what ""everybody are Albanians" POV based on outdated myths of Albanian nationalism" comment. Do you care to take to explain this. There are two Yugoslav sources written in part of the republic (Bosnia) that had nothing to gain from any analysis made on this topic. It was done in a era prior to the wars. You have not shown how they are problematic. Moreover the sources you use, you have not provided any in lines so other editors can see. "This article clearly explains non-Slavic origin of this people without giving undue weight to any hypothesis."". Scholars have postulated the these people have a Vlach and or Albanian ethnos or a mixture of both, as per the Yugoslav sources and peer reviewed Kaser. Mention of this will go into the article. The onus is on you Anti to show otherwise. Please conduct yourself in a civil manner also and stick to the subject matter, not the editor in question. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• No doubt you know that I did not comment "editor in question", but your actions.
• I think I gave a fairly clear reason why I did not give an undue weight to Albanian (or any other) hypothesis about the origin of ancient pre-Slavic Balkan tribes and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect me to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Its not about undue weight. The Serb sources you have placed, we have no idea if they even mentioned a Arbanas (i.e: Albanian) connection about these tribes, or at the very least Vlach for that matter. The Yugoslav sources and peer reviewed Kaser do in relation to these tribes. This comment: "Albanian (or any other) hypothesis about the origin of ancient pre-Slavic Balkan tribes" is original research and contradicted my scholarship relating to these tribes as i have outlined above. Some mention in the article regarding a Albanian and Vlach connection to these tribes will be added as per the sources. As for "actions", so far neither i or Mondiad have edited the article. We both have taken the path of discussing this first here on the talk page in good faith so this does not descend into a unproductive edit war going no where. All must maintain good faith and be civil about it.Resnjari (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Just as I said. "Were they Illyrians, Thracs, Dacians, Greeks? What were they?" suddenly became Albanian issue. The actions of you two are so predictable. When you two finish with articles about pre-VI century ancient Balkan tribes, all of them will be connected with Albanians (first recorded in the Balkans more than 500 years later). Word Albanian is mentioned 100 times just in this section alone. No Resnjari and Mondiad. This article is not about various hypothesis of Illyrian origin. Any editor who wants to know about it can go to the related article. Unless you obtain consensus for your intention to give undue weight to one of many different origin of Illyirans hipothesis, any attempt to Albanize this (or any other) ancient Balkan tribe would be a blatant and intentional violation of WP:NPOV. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The ancient Balkan tribes as you call them had to be something. They didn't just jump from the moon. The fact that you deny mentioning any of origin of theirs means that from the very start you are being selective on the information you are presenting. I don't edit the Illyrians related articles, or the Origin of the Albanians. But what you are trying to disguise here needs attention. From the other side, you are rely only on Serbian sources. Compare them to the ones Resnjari mentions, i.e. Kaser. What a big difference.--Mondiad (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect straw man misinterpretation of my comments. I did not deny mentioning any of origin of Magaruge. I objected to your poorly disguised intention to Albanize pre-VI century ancient Balkan tribes, per your "everybody are Albanians" editing pattern, by giving undue weight to hypothesis of Albanian origin of Illyrians. That would be a blatant and intentional violation of WP:NPOV. Labeling this article as POV because it does not give undue weight to hypothesis of Albanian origin of Illyrians (which is not subject of this article) is disruptive. Since it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, I will remove tag per Template:POV. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator some points need to be clarified. Regarding Albanian origins, no one has gone in and used a sources that says nothing about Mataruge but discusses Albanian origins and to then says these people where or could have been Albanian. That type of behavior constitutes WP:ORIGINALSYN and is not by any editor and goes against Wikipedia policy. The two Yugoslav sources, plus Kaser are wp:secondary and wp: reliable. It is they who state that these people are either of Vlach and or Albanian origin or both. I am going by the peer reviewed sources and policy. These scholarly works have made that determination. Your comments therefore are going by anything but the sources when you refer to hypothesis of Illyrians which i nor Mondiad have made reference to. As for Thracians, Dacians and Greeks that whole matter is the origins of the Albanians article. Our actions are not "predicable". We both want the article to abide by the sources, not on a editors interpretation of the sources. Wikipedia very clearly states that is a no. See WP:original. Me and Mondiad are not "Albanianizing ancient Balkan tribes" as you say and please do not resort to accusations. What about the Vlachs, no mention of them in the article, though sources (even Cvijic points to that) I wonder was he trying to Romanize them?). You have not in an instance stated or challenged the sources or their content that i have brought to the matter. How many times the word "Albanian" is cited is not the issue. The content of the article must reflect good peer reviewed material. These tribes are mentioned until the medieval period and at least during that time scholars such as Kaser have postulated that they are associated with a Vlach and or Albanian origin (like the Yugoslav sources). "any attempt to Albanize this (or any other) ancient Balkan tribe would be a blatant and intentional violation of WP:NPOV" show us how ? The sources back Mondiad and my position for further elaboration about these peoples. All you have given is original research.Resnjari (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator: Why do you question the neutrality of Karl Kaser? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

NPOV violation

With this edit (diff) Resnjari added text not directly related to the subject of this article to present one hypothesis about origin of Albanians ("emerged out of Romanized and semi Romanized indigenous Balkan tribes") as a fact:

• contrary to valid objections in the above section
• although there is no doubt they know that this outdated hypothesis is subject of dispute by modern scholarship (with many contemporary experts (high-quality reliable sources) emphasize that Albanians descend from people who immigrated to Balkans from territory that today belongs to Romania)

Based on this explanation I will add appropriate tag to the inserted text.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"outdated hypothesis" by whom ? Antidiskriminator please elaborate first. The sources i placed there are one from Yugoslav sources and other Slavic sources (recent) and two Kaser (recent) along side. If you want i can add in lines too. Don't be difficult about this. So far you have not presented anything to the country regarding these sources. All you do is present wp:original research positions, as the Albanian factor may not be to your liking. Note Vlach too was added as per the sources. Don't POV push.Resnjari (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

No doubt you know that Origin of Albanians is subject of dispute. There are plenty of sources at that article. Your Wikipedia:Cherrypicking is disruptive. Calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil and pejorative per this essay. Please don't repeat it in future.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You either disprove those sources or you take this to arbitration. So far all your comments have been either wp:original and especially [[WP:SYN]. You are POV pushing by continuously not addressing an issue/s with the source, keep on bringing up matters such as "No doubt you know that Origin of Albanians is subject of dispute." that do relate to this article. So yes i stand by what i said. If you think i have contravened any policy i am more that happy for you to take this to arbitration and will make my case accordingly. Note the sources i have placed are not Albanian and they mention Mataruge outright. Reflect on that before making more commentary based on wp:original and wp:syn.Resnjari (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

No doubt you know very well that origin of Albanians is disputed. You already misinterpreted (explanation here) one high quality source Fine, John Van Antwerp (1991). The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century. University of Michigan Press. p. 11. ISBN 0-472-08149-7. which emphasize that hypothesis about Albanians descending from Dacians "have strong points and cannot be summarily dismissed". You did it with the same aim you have here and many other articles on wikipedia. You are here to push Greater Albanian nationalistic Illyrian autochthonous mythology, not to build an encyclopedia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Anti, if you want to bring up past discussions i am more than happy to indulge you with your POV pushing the "settler" matter on that article (As you recall, it was a third editor who had to come in a remove that sentence and so on. If you see on that article, the section i have written stands in full, whereas your additions are no where to be seen.) The sources cited in THIS article mention Mataruge. That you have not disputed. Now you are going on about Dacians etc. Do you have sources challenging Mataruge people's connections to Vlachs and possibly Albanians. That is what certain scholars have said as per the sources. Please stick to content.Resnjari (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You are now using straw man fallacy and demonstrating WP:IDHT, which is another evidence of your disruptive editing. I clearly explained why the text about origin of Albanians ("emerged out of Romanized and semi Romanized indigenous Balkan tribes") you added to this article violates WP:NPOV. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, what is not clear in the sources? --MorenaReka (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, your making a big deal out of nothing. The way the sentence was reshaped is fine. It is the view of some scholars relating to this tribe. An addition would be Cvijic who thinks that these tribes are of Vlach origin. The article is about Mataruge and scholarship encompassing it. Therefore scholarly views regarding them relate to the article. Note i have not used any Albanian or Romanian sources. Two are Yugoslav, one Bosnian and one Austrian. These sources meet wp:reliable. Also regarding wp:idh how does that relate to this article ? How is place sources relating to Mataruge "disruptive editing". Look if anyone thinks i have contravened policy, there is the arbitration committee where edits and such concerns can be discussed with multiple third parties working it out too.Resnjari (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Spani family=Španje?

Is Spani family=Španje? --MorenaReka (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The importance of up-to-date bibliography

The article uses at least 70-year-old bibliography which creates unnecessary confusion which doesn't exist in modern bibliography. For example, we know that the Albanian family/clan of Matranga isn't related to this tribe despite what a writing from 1965 might say. Even in its time it would be an absurd claim between because Matranga was a southern clan that went to form the Arbëreshë communities, while Mataruga/e was one of the northernmost clans. Another issue, has to do with the "Albanians, Vlachs or both" debate. Setting aside the fact that only one source mentions them so per Vlajko Palavestra (1966), while the other says In the lists, Albanians are reported together with Vlachs. This makes studying the possible differences in the acceptance of Islam by Vlachs and Albanians. Only with the tribes that are specifically known to be Albanian, could establish the occurrence of the acceptance of Islam (Bjelopavlići, Burmazi, Grude, Hoti, Klimenta / Koeljmend, Maine, Macura, Maine, Malonšići/Malonzo, Mataruge/Mataronge and Škrijelj). (a generally accepted fact which has to do with the use of term "Vlach' as a catch-all term for all pastoral communities) as of 2020 the defters which are relevant to the Mataruge have been translated. We finally know at least part of the history of these people. We don't live in the 1960s and 1970s, when bibliography relied more on etymological or historical hypotheses. We can actually point to a defter and remove the uncertainty which arises from not having any primary source which in turn are interpreted by their translators in second bibliography. Iljaz Rexha has translated the defter of the Sanjak of Novi Pazar of 1477. At that time, the Mataruga (not Mataruge), an Albanian tribe lived in Prijepolje where they formed a distinct nahiya. Their leader was a Vojko Arbanash and their settlements includes Dobroja Bukur, Dardhaca, Gjelinc, Gashic, Gurovik, Brezna. It was translated in 2015 by Iliaz Rexha of the University of Sarajevo.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

There is a etymology heading in this page but does not present a etymology??? Surix321 (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)