Talk:Bua (tribe)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Bua family)

Origin[edit]

@Zoupan:The reference clearly says that an Albanian origin is suggested.Then the reference says that he was Aromanian,but this is just another hypothesis.It's not the first time you do such things.I have seen that you are interested in noble's origin.For example,why don't you see some references about the origins of other countries' nobles?Also you can add some figures at "Albanians in serbia".I am suggesting this to you as you are very interested in nobles' origins.Rolandi+ (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Where is this stated?--Zoupan 18:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond (1976). Migrations and Invasions in Greece and Adjacent Areas. Noyes Press. ISBN 978-0-8155-5047-1. ... They were in fact Vlachs; for the Vlach-speaking Malakasii and Bouii, who live today in central Pindus and in southern Thessaly, are undoubtedly descendants of these same people.9 They were called "Albanians" by Cantacuzenus, because they had come in a geographical sense from the area which he called "Albania" ...
  • Arshi Pipa (1978). Albanische Forschungen. O. Harrassowitz. According to Jirecek, « the Pindus Albanians of Emperor Kantakuzenos, the Malakasi, Mesariti, and Bui tribes, were not Albanians, but Rumanians — they are still known as Malakasi and Bui
  • Eno Koço (27 February 2015). A Journey of the Vocal Iso(n). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 82. ISBN 978-1-4438-7578-3. But, reading the Hammond diaries, kept by him in 1930, ... "The Bouii are a cluster of Vlach tribes
  • Asterios I. Kukudēs (2003). The Vlachs: Metropolis and Diaspora. Zitros Publ. ISBN 978-960-7760-86-9. The Bouii were probably part of the Vlach population of the Great Vlachia of the Middle Ages.

"Albanian historians consider Gjin (or Ghinu) Buia and Peter Liosha Albanian, but it is sure that at least the Buia were Aromanians".Here is stated.The reference says "Albanian historians" meaning that there are many historians that say that Bua were Albanian,while there is a limited number of references that say that Bua were Aromanians,and one of this reference is an A/romanian scholar.As for Bouii I doubt that they were the same tribe with Bua.Rolandi+ (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Spata belonged to the Spatas, and not the Bua. The reference does not say what you are claiming.--Zoupan 19:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try playing games!Why is this reference used here (in fact by you)?Because this Gjin Buia was part of Buia family.Rolandi+ (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same source also says explicitly "These three tribes were often considered to be of Albanian stock, but they were in fact of Aromanian origin". Trying to use this source to prove that "many historians" say they are Albanian and "a limited number" say that they are Aromanian is pure synthesis bordering on dishonesty. Unless you can find reliable sources discussing the origin and concluding on an Albanian origin, the adding of the "Albanian hypothesis" is unacceptable. See also WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. --T*U (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Italian Center for philological and linguistic studies,Bua family was of Albanian origin.[1] Rolandi+ (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bollettino, Volumes 3-4,"Riassumendo, abbiamo 48 famiglia siciliane di cui posso rintracciare in qualche modo l'origine albanese. ... II d. C.) T; NS. Masi (Mazaei, Mazi sec. II) T; NCS. Cuccia (Cucci, Kuqi sec. IV) T; NCS. Seuri (sec. XII); C. Gropa (sec. ... 1304) T; CX. Matessi (Matja 1304) T; NCSX. Spata (1304) T; CS. Matranga ( 1 3 1 9) ; C. Bua (1333) T: S. Masarachi...",pg.83
Misinterpretation after misinterpretation. The reference mentions Sicilian families of Albanian origin (Arbëreshë), and includes years when their names are first mentioned in sources.--Zoupan 18:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Zoupan,you are always right.It mentions Bua family and some other powerful families in Albania.Strange!

However,this is another proof that Bua were of Albanian origin [1] Rolandi+ (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It states "Mercurio Bua, of the Albanian race", and does not make any difference. Mercurio was still regarded Albanian or Epirote by origin.--Zoupan 17:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Zoupan:There is sth strange here.Bua family whose members were Peter,Theodore and Mercurio was in Peloponnese, while Madgearu and all other references presented by you place Bui,Buia,Bouii (and not Bua) in Pindus,Epirus and Thessaly.There wasn't any Ghin (at least not a notable person) from this article's Bua family,it may look strange but the Vlach Boui,Buii call it as you want isn't the Bua family of this article.Bua family of this article was in Peloponnese/Morea,they weren't in Epirus.

Also,Madgearu says:"The Aromanian family Buia had a leading place in the fourteenth- eighteenth centuries in Epirus and Thessaly, while a Vlach village from northern Thessaly was named Malacasi".On the other hand this article's Bua family (and not Madgearu's Buia) was a prominent family in Morea.For a period thay also ruled the areas of the Morea that hadn't been conquered by the Ottomans.The vlach Buia hasn't been in Morea.Rolandi+ (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Rolandi+ and Zoupan are both socks. Stricken per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Calthinus (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.al/books?id=0T0bAAAAYAAJ&q=mercurio+bua+albanese+origina&dq=mercurio+bua+albanese+origina&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC0Q6AEwA2oVChMIu_ii-quSxwIVCxQsCh32CwQa

Albanian tribe[edit]

This article is about the Albanian Bua family, whose members were spread in Albania, Epirus, Thessaly, Peloponnese and Italy. It was a relatively large Albanian clan (Osswald 2007, p. 136): "14th-century Albanian immigration was far more important than the Serbian or Italian ones. Indeed, we know that the Boua clan present in the Peloponnese in 1423 numbered about one or two thousand people. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know how many clansmen left Epirus for the Peloponnese and how many remained. It is also impossible to know how large the other clans were; but we may be sure that several thousand Albanians were installed in Epirus before the Turkish period. Their presence was massive, as our sources say, and their assimilation was problematic, as is shown both by the survival down the centuries of the Albanian language and by the descriptions and accounts given by our sources." .The members of Peloponnese can't be Aromanian as per Hammond (1983, p. 47) The Vlachs were a different set of people from the Albanians. The Vlachs stayed in northern Greece; they did not move into the Peloponnese, or if they did they disappeared. These Vlachs are professional transhumants, and until probably the eighteenth century they did not have any villages. This is a recent source (Floristán, 2019) that reports a great number of research and studies published very recently on the Albanian families / clans. Don't add WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE please. – Βατο (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Valentini (1956) writes: BUA , tribù - dal solo Pouqueville è detta valacca, contro tutti gli storici medioevali e moderni, e contro la documentazione che vedremo ; già nel sec. XI V aveva la sua importanza storica. Also, this was a tribe not a family at first. In Kryethi, the article is about the tribe and a section is about the family, I will change the title.--Maleschreiber (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was already discussed by Valentini and his research in the mid-twentieth century. After the first studies by Sathas, in the last years of the 20th century many other recent research has been done by Babinger (1964), Hassiotis (1970), Schirò (1971-1972), Kolyvá (1973), Plumidis (1995), Petta ( 1996), Patapiou (1998); and in the 21st century there are the even more recent studies by Bugh (2002), Maltezou (2003), Korrè (2008), Gramaticopolo (2011-2012), Pappas (2013), Birtachas (2018). I agree on the title "Bua (tribe)" as evidenced by scholars. – Βατο (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following references used in the article are absent from the bibliography: Meksi 2010, Valentini 1956 and Miller 2014. You can use the script https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Svick/HarvErrors.js to be notified of such errors. Alcaios (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) There are at least three high quality sources (Madgearu, Hammond, Winnifrith) that unambiguously state the tribe was Aromanian in origin. Per WP:NPOV and WP:BALASP, this material should stay in the article. Khirurg (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the previus comments here? It is WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE because your addition would imply that the Albanians of Morea and those of Italy (Arbëreshë) are actually Aromanians, which is non historical and not supported by the evidence. – Βατο (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I disagree with renaming from Bua family to Bua tribe performed two days ago (diff). The rationale was only a small part of this community ever constituted a "noble family". The subject of this article are notable members of the family. The "Bua tribe" have never received significant coverage in reliable sources neutral from the subject. The old title which is covered by silent consensus for more than five years should be restored. Editors who insist on tribe title should initiate RM. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about the "family" because the "family" never existed. It's about a tribe, some descendants of which became known in their own right, but they're not part of some "family". The same problem exists in all articles you and the other, now permabanned editor have started whether they are about Albanians, Serbs or anyone else. The only category of social organization you seem to think to have existed throughout time is the western feudal family. Historically, even that didn't exist in the way you seem to think it existed. You two - without bothering to read specialized bibliography in order to understand the concept - thought that everything is a "noble family". --Maleschreiber (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformed use of bibliography[edit]

  • The full quote by Magdearu (2008) is The despots Gjin Buia Spata and Peter Liosha were recognized by Symeon Uros" in 1359-1360 as rulers in Epirus and Aetolia. Albanian historians consider Gjin (or Ghinu) Buia and Peter Liosha Albanian, but it is sure that at least the Buia were of Aromanian origin. (..) These three tribes were often considered to be of Albanian stock, but they were in fact of Aromanian origin, as French traveller Francois Charles Pouqeuville observed at the beginning of the nineteenth century. So Pouqeuville is the primary source of Magdearu and Magdearu is discussing this also in the context of the ethnic origins of the modern inhabitants of the village Bouii in Epirus which he explicitly mentions as too in his claim. Valentini and many others in specialized bibliography have repeatedly explained that the modern Bouii village is unrelated to the Bua tribe: BUA , tribù - dal solo Pouqueville è detta valacca, contro tutti gli storici medioevali e moderni, e contro la documentazione che vedremo ; già nel sec. XI V aveva la sua importanza storica.
  • Hammond and Winnifrith are both quoted - but if Khirurg added a verifiable link to Winnifrith, we would be able to verify that both quotes come from the same source: Hammond (1976) who writes that They were in fact Vlachs; for the Vlach-speaking Malakasii and Bouii, who live today in central Pindus and in southern Thessaly, are undoubtedly descendants of these same people. according to what Khirurg quoted, but if Khirurg had full access to bibliography or if he provided the context of the discussion, we would verify that he then writes But these were probably Vlachs; there were in Pouque-ville's time Vlachs in the Pindus who called themselves Bovi, and there is still a village called Malakasi (..) It was argued by G. C. Soulis in Epeteris Byz- antinon Spoudon 23 (1953) 213 that the Malakasii, etc. were Albanians and not Vlachs, but the fact that the modern Malakasii and Bouii are Vlachs is surely decisive. So, there is reliance on Pouqueville, a reference to the modern Bouii, but these two are unrelated as specialized bibliography shows. It's a large misuse of bibliography to reduce it to quotes that are used out of their intended context and argumentation. It's also a mistake to add in the lead a malformed discussion in which 10X more sources support the opposite including every source in the article. You can't say "this family was Albanian or Aromanian" and then have a main article body in which every reference begins with the assumption that this was an Albanian tribe.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your rationale here Maleschreiber. I think that your conclusion that Winnifrith and Magdearu relied on Pouqueville when they concluded that Bua were Vlachs is incorrect. I think that they only mentioned Pouqueville after they presented their position. On the other hand, I do agree with you that You can't ......have a main article body in which every reference begins with the assumption that this was an Albanian tribe.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every source says exactly that: Albanian tribe, family etc. They're all referring to Pouqueville.--Maleschreiber (talk)
This is a particularly intellectually dishonest attempt to explicate away something that is not to your liking. It doesn't matter who Hammond and Madgearu rely on Pouqueville. So what? All sources rely on other, older sources. It is the historian's job to evaluate older sources. Similarly, Winnifrith cites Hammond, that's how history is done. With you "logic", the entire discipline of history falls apart. If it's good enough for Madgearu and Hammond, it's good enough for us. All that is needed is that the sources meet WP:RS and WP:V. These are non-negotiable. On the other hand, your sophistry is not welcome. Khirurg (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are about the Aromanian Bouii, not about the Albanian Bua. That the Bua in Peloponnese were Albanians can simply be confirmed by Hammond (1983, p. 47): The Vlachs were a different set of people from the Albanians. The Vlachs stayed in northern Greece; they did not move into the Peloponnese, or if they did they disappeared. These Vlachs are professional transhumants, and until probably the eighteenth century they did not have any villages. All the modern scholars state that the Bua in Peloponnese and Italy are Albanian (Arbëreshë), that fact can not be dismissed because is evidenced by historical sources. – Βατο (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The quote your presented does not mention Bua, nor it refutes what above mentioned modern scholars stated about Bua. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "above mentioned modern scholars" do not refer to the Albanian Bua tribe that settled in Peloponnese and Italy. This is a recent source (Floristán, 2019) that reports scholars' studies published very recently on the Albanian families / clans, like Valentini (1956), Babinger (1964), Hassiotis (1970), Schirò (1971-1972), Kolyvá (1973), Plumidis (1995), Petta ( 1996), Patapiou (1998) in the last half of the 20th century; Bugh (2002), Maltezou (2003), Korrè (2008), Gramaticopolo (2011-2012), Pappas (2013), Birtachas (2018) in the 21st century. WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE should be avoided by experienced Wikipedia editors. – Βατο (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 scholars (Magdearu and Hammond), so there's a very real WP:UNDUE issue with having any reference of this kind in the WP:LEAD without moving into considering what the sources say. Magdeauru writes These three tribes were often considered to be of Albanian stock, but they were in fact of Aromanian origin, as French traveller Francois Charles Pouqeuville observed at the beginning of the nineteenth century. so he begins by accepting that the majority of scholars have a very different opinion than him and he directly quotes Pouqueville - who in the book quoted also says There were four main branches of the Vlachs referred to in the text, the Perhebiens, the Brouzi, the Massarets or Dassarets and the Boui or Boviens. This is WP:FRINGE by definition. Then, there's Hammond who goes one to discuss their origin in relation to the modern Bouii again by quoting Pouqueville, but he says nothing about the Bua in the Peloponnese. In this case, we also have WP:OR in relation to WP:FRINGE.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valentini (1956) replies to Pouqueville's historical frivolities with Quant aux Massarets, ou plutot Dassarets (identificazione classica de cui e lecito dubitare!), qui habitent aux environs du lac d'Ochrida, et les Bovients ou Valaques meridionaux (anche qui il Pouqueville s'inganna, prendendo i suoi "Boviens", che sono i Bua certamente albanesi, per Valacchi. So, no, you can't put forward a claim based on a direct reference to this sort of fringe.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right to point out that Magdeauru admits that they are generally described as Albanian before presenting his position. This should mentioned in the lede with a wording like "some scholars" or "a number of scholars have argued that..." Alcaios (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That information is not related to the well attested Albanian Bua of Peloponnese and Italy. We should rely on what recent researchers state after they consulted the archives and historical sources on the Bua tribe. – Βατο (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hammond is referring also tribes that have nothing to do with Bua: The Bouii are a cluster of Vlach tribes, one of which gave up the nomadic life many generations ago and settled down in southern Thessaly. The Bua never settled in Thessaly.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming perfectly reliable sources are WP:FRINGE is intellectually dishonest. Stop it. And it's not two, it's three. Winnifrith endorses Hammond's view, so it counts. This is blatant WP:JDL here. Khirurg (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it doesn't make much sense, it refers to another tribe in Thessaly or to other people. But I'm not opposed to the inclusion of the content. I think that it could be mentioned in the history section as part of the historiographical debate but not in the lead and not as an alternative fact. If we accept that, then it becomes only legitimate that we should write that the Dassaretae were Vlach too. N.Hoxha (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there is a large consensus which has to be represented in the lead. Now, if we want to have a historiographical debate about Pouqueville whom Magdearu and Hammond cite, we can do that in the history section in a carefully attributed way. But it's wrong to say "or Aromanian" in the lead as if this is part of an equal discussion to them being Albanians. Every Bua who has ever lived was known as an Albanian. Nowhere, in historical record, is there a "Vlach Bua". Pouqueville found a Vlach Bouii village and just two historians support that today and even they acknowledge what the consensus is.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is just WP:JDL. At Balsic noble family, you lot fought tooth and nail to exclude any mention of ethnicity in the lede. But here, you are fighting tooth and nail to exclude reliably sourced material using a variety of excuses. The intellectual dishonesty is stunning, and also tiresome. As an exercise, let's imagine we had an article about an Aromanian noble family that some sources said was Albanian. It does not strain the imagination to imagine your reaction to keeping such sources out. Comments such as we should write that the Dassaretae were Vlach too are just trolling and indicate a lack of seriousness. Khirurg (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to include in the history section the information about the Bovi/Bouii tribe settled in Thessaly and described by Pouqueville. The Bua tribe in Peloponnese and Italy can't be described as Aromanian since no source (old and modern) supports it. – Βατο (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Khirurg, you claimed about Pouqueville If it's good enough for Madgearu and Hammond, it's good enough for us. and I gave his full quote which I assume you've never read before: There were four main branches of the Vlachs referred to in the text, the Perhebiens, the Brouzi, the Massarets or Dassarets and the Boui or Boviens. It's fringe, other scholars have been pointed that it's fringe, and nobody considers a good source except for Magdearu and Hammond on this issue. They can have that opinion, but it's not shared by the rest of the community - which they too recognize.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not for you to second guess reliable sources. If a source passes WP:RS, that's it. You have to accept it. Otherwise, if we start going down that route, it will be chaos. Go back and read WP:FRINGE. You can't just call fringe anything don't like. Khirurg (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pouqueville doesn't pass RS, but we can have this discussion in WP:RSN instead of here. Read Valentini (1956) too about the evaluation of Pouqueville and his "Bouii" Quant aux Massarets, ou plutot Dassarets (identificazione classica de cui e lecito dubitare!), qui habitent aux environs du lac d'Ochrida, et les Bovients ou Valaques meridionaux (anche qui il Pouqueville s'inganna, prendendo i suoi "Boviens", che sono i Bua certamente albanesi, per Valacchi. Also, Magdearu who uses Pouqeuville admits that his theory is in the minority These three tribes were often considered to be of Albanian stock, but they were in fact of Aromanian origin, as French traveller Francois Charles Pouqeuville observed at the beginning of the nineteenth century..--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) This isn't about Pouqueville, so stop it with the intellectual dishonesty. Winnifrith, Hammond, and Madgearu all pass WP:RS. In addition, we also have the below sources:

  • Arshi Pipa (1978). Albanische Forschungen. O. Harrassowitz. According to Jirecek, « the Pindus Albanians of Emperor Kantakuzenos, the Malakasi, Mesariti, and Bui tribes, were not Albanians, but Rumanians — they are still known as Malakasi and Bui
  • Eno Koço (27 February 2015). A Journey of the Vocal Iso(n). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 82. ISBN 978-1-4438-7578-3. But, reading the Hammond diaries, kept by him in 1930, ... "The Bouii are a cluster of Vlach tribes
  • Asterios I. Kukudēs (2003). The Vlachs: Metropolis and Diaspora. Zitros Publ. ISBN 978-960-7760-86-9. The Bouii were probably part of the Vlach population of the Great Vlachia of the Middle Ages.

So that's six sources, all which pass WP:RS. Yet here you are, using sophistry and other forms of intellectual dishonest to suppress information that would be of interest to our readers. Why? It's becoming very hard that is because you just don't like it. Khirurg (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you read what you're quoting? I'm asking because you're again quoting Hammond (it's a footnote in Koco's book about musicology) The Bouii are a cluster of Vlach tribes, one of which gave up the nomadic life many generations ago and settled in southern Thessaly, where their descendants live today. They are called, the Frasheriot Vlachs. These "Bouii" aren't even related to this article, as no Bua ever settled in Thessaly and the source doesn't discuss them in relation to the historical Bua who migrated from Epirus, in the Peloponnese and afterwards to the Ionian islands and then to Italy. Koukoudes is referring to the same Thessalian "Bouii"/"Great Vlachia" (note that these are not called "Bua" in the sources). Jirecek (1913) - whose full volumes I have on my desk right in front of me - quotes Pouqueville and speaks about something entirely different than the snippet you're using by Arshi Pipa, a literary critic. Snippet searching/quoting won't do it. Write an article about the Thessalian Bouii if the subject interests you. --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that you all summarize the debate in a section of the article, then summarize the section itself with one or two sentences in the lede. The Aromanian origin appears to be a minority view, but it is still defended by some modern scholars, so it cannot be silenced in the article. I must admit that I'm not familiar with this specific subject, and I haven't read all the mentioned sources yet, but I'm trying to find a consensual solution. Alcaios (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alcaios: I'm good with what you've done, it's a good solution. I've said that I'm ok with discussing this in the article in terms of bibliography. I expanded a bit on what Pouqueville actually wrote since every source specifically quotes him.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources that point to the Aromanian oringin can't be considered 'minority' especially when we have six mainstream authors on the subject.Alexikoua (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What "six authors"? Three of them are Hammond and the full quotes don't even support what you're trying to put forward. Madgearu accepts that he's in the minority These three tribes were often considered to be of Albanian stock, but they were in fact of Aromanian origin, as French traveller Francois Charles Pouqeuville observed at the beginning of the nineteenth century. If you don't want to accept what bibliography says, that is ok, but we're not going over the same quotes again, just because of WP:JDL. Read the discussion. More than a few have replied to the misquoting put forward here.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't read all of this. But...

  • Arshi Pipa is the absolute opposite of a source we should be using. The prime issue is his published thoughts that "Ghegeria" is "occupied" by some Tosk supremacy, and the Bua, a tribe (whether of Aromanian origin or not) of Tosks, are affected by that matter.
  • Pouqueville likewise is obviously not RS, but RS citing him can be used -- but you don't get to "count" him in some sort of source "tally".
  • A piece about musicology does not count as RS for a historical tribe.

That all said, it's probably a notable view imo, talkpage shenanigans aside. It's probably as Madgearu said: a notable minority view.--Calthinus (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the statement that the Albanian Bua tribe that settled in the Peloponnese may have had Aromanian origins. Aromanians did not settle in the Peloponnese, there is no evidence for Poqueville's statement and no connection to the Albanians of the Peloponnese. – Βατο (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bua_(tribe)&oldid=1206464413"