Talk:Gjon Kastrioti

When Ivan became Ottoman timariot?

Defeated by Murad II in 1421 he was forced to vasality and from time to time one or more of his sons were sent as a hostages to Ottoman court.

In article about Skanderbeg is written:

“Gjon Kastrioti had accepted his submission to be the Sultan's vassal in 1409”

When Ivan became Ottoman timariot, in 1409 or 1421?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Albanian???

There isn't any credible original source claiming he was Albanian and nobody called him "Gjon" at his time. Barleti said he was from Macedonia. Oliver Schmitt names him "Iban" and supports that he was a Byzantine-Serb. This view must be added in the article and title must change to his english name. --Exodic2 (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

albania didn't exist then not nationally not as a region. it's bysanthium and the geographic regions are epirus and macedonia. even if you translate albania to shqiperia(original word for albania) that didn't exist either. they had slavic names with bysanthium surnames and that's all. albanian national hero??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.224.225 (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow Albania didt exist then?!! I`m sorry but the ignorant arrogance some of other balkan peoples have against Albanians is both sad and disturbing. http://www.historyarts.ro/carti/vlad_tepes/balkan_1450-1500.jpg

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/pegasus.gif

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00maplinks/mughal/cluvermaps/ancientgreece1711nw.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Europa_1400.jpg

http://www.nada.kth.se/~ovidiu/maps/images/honter-map6.jpg

http://www.nada.kth.se/~ovidiu/maps/images/honter-map7.jpg

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/europe_1360.jpg

http://62.20.57.210/kra/bilder/0401/01/C/l%2017.jpg

http://www.euratlas.net/cartogra/lesage/histoire_06/images/atlas_06_3_1.jpg

http://i30.tinypic.com/2r2opjr.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/%C3%96stromerska_och_osmanska_rikena_slutet_av_1300talet.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.156.131 (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Bertrandon de la Broquière's from Burgundy visited in 1433 Adrianople and was informed that turks were preoccupied in putting down an uprising by prince of ALBANIA John Castriot, this is one of thousands of sources that he was Albanian, how much proff do you people want untill you are happy,

http://img59.imageshack.us/f/castriot.jpg/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.156.131 (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Albania of course existed, as a geographica entity. "Prince of Albania" does not mean "Albanian". John Castrioti was "from Macedonia" as Barletti said. If he was "Albanian", I suppose Barletti wouldn't have any problem to state so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.72.98 (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Barleti use many times ancient names for the regions, for examble Serbia is never mentioned in his work only the ancient name of region "Moesia", Turks are never mentions in their name but only as Troyans, Thracians and barbarians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.156.131 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

His name in contemporary Latin and Ottoman sources

In Venice Republic correspondence with him and in Venice references he is called Juanum Castrioti (1407), Johannes Castriot (1413, 1417, 1433), Yanus (1424) or Juano Castrioth (1439), Juani (1445). In Ottoman sources Juvan and its dominion Juvan-ili (Juvan's land). Contemporary authors: Raphael Volaterranus, calls him Johannes Dibras, Barleti, calls him Iohannes, Gjon Muzaka calls him Giovanni. Demetrio Franco calls him also Giovanni. Aigest (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

His name in works of scholars

Resolved

Here are Google Books search results for "Ivan Kastriot". It is obvious that many scholars use Ivan Kastriot and that use of that name is not limited to the

Also, historian that is probably most involved in this topic us Ivan as name of this person. Also you can see that one of the biggest authorities in this topic use Ivan in his works: Lechner, Gerhard. "Buch über Nationalhelden Skanderbeg erregt die Albaner". Wiener Zeitung. Retrieved 1 April 2011.. Therefore I propose to add this information in the text of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the sources brought by you Antid, you will see that either a) they came from Yugoslav scholars either b) they cite the old Hilandar document writen by Slavic speaking priests mentioned above. Given the fact that "Gjon Kastrioti" is the most used term in publications in English language (but even in Yugoslav publications this name is used also, check pages for that) Gjon Kastrioti will be the name in English wikipedia. Aigest (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not propose to rename the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"The Balkans: a short history from Greek times to the present day, Volume 1972, Part 2" Edgar Hösch (German historian and emeritus professor of history of Eastern Europe and Southeast Europe at the Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich). "...the lord of Mati and Dibra, Ivan Castriota,.... Ivan remained on his estates..."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Google books search hits for Ivan Castriota. I am not convinced anymor that the title of the article is correct.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)Read above and wiki policy for the names in English. Aigest (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You are maybe right. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Names_and_titles_outside_the_West says: Wikipedia's general practice is to use the most common form in English as the article title. As far as I can see, the Google Books search have much more Gjons than Ivans in texts on English, although I have to notice that many books have both Gjon and John or Ivan. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbanaški pirg and George Kastriot

Resolved

Arbanaški pirg is tower of Hilandar monastery, not graveyard. Many sources can confirm that: et la Tour albanaise (Arbanaški pirg), Ova kula je sačuvana sve do današnjih dana u Hilandaru i nosi naziv Arbanaški pirg... and the name pirg is derived from pirgue Greek word Πύργος which means tower.

George Kastriot is name of Skanderbeg on English language.

Majuru, please do not revert without explanation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Majuru, you again reverted without discussion on the talk page. Pirgue is tower of the monastery, not near monastery. Arbanaški pirg is name on Serbian language, why did you delete tag for Serbian language and changed Skandebeg's name on English into Albanian? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

We should delete the whole paragraph, because it is not sourced. Majuru (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph was sourced. Now it is sourced with even more sources. Anyway, you should not remove cited work, especially without any explanation. Someone could see it as tendentious editing. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Title

Did Gjon Kastrioti had some "official" royal title? Prince, King, duke, lord? Of what? Can someone help me understand? :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

His letter to merchants from Dubrovnik

Here is work written by Konstantin Josef Jireček who mention Ivan's letter to merchants from Dubrovnik on February 25, 1420. The source says that it is "serbian letter". Page 334. It describes that a reason for him to write to merchants from Dubrovnik was Branković's order to those merchants to avoid Montenegro and travel from Dubrovnik to Kosovo trough area controlled by Ivan Kastriot. I propose to include this details in the article. Anybody against it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Supposedly that might be used as a fact for the territories which were under Kastrioti rule in 1420, however we need a scholar opinion on that, otherwise is WP:OR. Aigest (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right when you, based on WP:OR, claim that: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. The document I mentioned is interpreted by scholar. That is Konstantin Josef Jireček (he was professor of history in Charles University in Prague). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If Jireček tell only that he has discovered a written letter of Gjon, I can not see how this is relevant to be used in article. There are several letters from Gjon, to some merchants, to Ragusian Senate, to Venice Senate and proveditors etc. What is the interpretation of the letter made by Jireček? Aigest (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I made mistake with the page number. It is 335 and contain the interpretation of Jiriček which is exactly like I wrote. It was Jiriček who interpreted Ivan's letter as ""serbian letter" written "to merchants from Dubrovnik" based on the "Branković's order to those merchants to avoid Montenegro and travel from Dubrovnik to Kosovo trough area controlled by Ivan Kastriot". (забрани деспот Дубровчанима да иду тим путем и нагна их да путују кроз млетачку скадарску област и кроз земљу Ивана Кастриота 105 ....105 a Види српско писмо Ивана Кастриота од 25 фебруара 1420 за дубровачке трговце кроз његову земљу за Призрен ... - my translation: "Despot (George Branković - Added by Antidiskriminator) forbid to Ragusians to travel that way and ordered them to travel trough Venetian lands in Shkoder and trough land of Ivan Kastriot (105) - See serbian letter of Ivan Kastriot from February 25, 1420 written to Ragusian merchants which are travelling to Prizren trough his land.)"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid there is of no great use. There is actually another letter directed to some merchants in which it is stated that Gjon Kastrioti could offer them protection from Lezhë to Prizren area and that is interpreted by Kristo Frasheri as showing the extension of Kastrioti principality of that time. I had to check for the exact page in Frasheri book and dates he is talking about. Aigest (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If Frasheri has different opinion than some other historian that does not mean that work of another historian "is of no great use". Let us follow NPOV policy and present both interpretations. Still, I propose you to check again that interpretation of Frasheri and if it is really "showing the extention of Kasstrioti principality of that time" taking in consideration that it is undisputed that in 15th century Prizren was part of Serbian Despotate and controlled by House of Branković till 1455.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I said of no great use because you offered no interpretation on that letter. What kind of different opinion of Jirecek you are talking about? I asked you about the interpretation of that letter from Jirecek and you said "It was Jiriček who interpreted Ivan's letter as ""serbian letter" written "to merchants from Dubrovnik" based on the "Branković's order to those merchants to avoid Montenegro and travel from Dubrovnik to Kosovo trough area controlled by Ivan Kastriot".". That is not an interpretation, it is just reporting sources (eg. this letter says so). In the other hand there is an interpretation of sources (letter to merchants) by Frasheri who claims (based on that letter) that the northern borders of Gjon Kastrioti principality were from Lezhë to the vicinity of Prizren. That is an intepretation. Another example would be the letter to the monastery of Hilandar. Just reporting its terms is not an interpretation, while in the other hand claiming (based on that Hilandar document) that the eastern boundaries of Kastrioti principality were around those villages he gave to the monastery, that is an interpretation. Hope you get what I mean. P.S. The term "Serbian letter" has no sense in this case. Instead you should use "letter written in Serbian" (if that is what you are talking about). Aigest (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that our discussion went to unproductive direction and lost connection with my proposal. Let us focus on my proposal. If you look at the beginning of this section you will notice that I proposed to add the information that on February 25, 1420 Ivan Kastriot sent a letter to merchants of Dubrovnik who traveled trough his land when trading with Serbia. Merchants from Dubrovnik used that route instead of their previous route trough land controlled by Gojčin Crnojević because Despot requested merchants to avoid land of Crnojević who was, together with other small feudal lords and highlander tribes, unsatisfied with strict regulations in Serbia enforced by despot.

I did not propose to use that letter as source. Instead, I proposed to use Jiricek's work as source. Based on the Jiričeks work I will add to the text of the article below information about Kastriot, supported with Jiricek's work:

On February 25, 1420 Gjon Kastriot wrote a letter on Serbian language to merchants from Dubrovnik. Based on the order of despot of Serbia, when they traveled from Dubrovnik to Prizren they had to use the route trough Shkodër in Albania Veneta and the Kastriot's land instead of the previous route trough the land under control of the small feudal lords and highlander tribes of Montenegro.

I agree with you that there is no different interpretation because there are two letters Ivan Kastriot wrote. Feel free to add information about another letter to the article, based on the referenced source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

My point is on article style. Including in the article every letter that ones has written has no point. Instead if we use their possible interpretation by scholars we can improve the article. I've given above two examples of existing documents, on Hilandar and the letter to other merchants. On the facts stated on those letters, there exist several interpretations by scholars. On Hilandar case for example there are interpretations on names of Gjoni's sons, their possible age at that time, the extension of his domains, relations with Orthodox religion etc, and those were done by scholars. Including them here makes sense, instead of just stating that there is a document which says that Gjon has given some villages to Hilandar monastir. Are you clear on that? Aigest (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Every primary source which is discovered and preserved has big importance in understanding the biography of the person we talk about, taking in consideration this is the case of medieval history of Albania. There is no policy which support avoiding the informations about primary sources used in secondary sources, i.e. works of historians? If I am wrong, please provide a link to such policy. Otherwise, I disagree with your point on article style. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No primary sources is a well known policy. I've already asked you about the opinion of Jireček on that letter and you said that there was no opinion just a fact (this letter says bla-bla). That is not an interpretation of sources, but rather a report about the existence of a letter. This is not how wiki usually works. Gjon Kastrioti supposedly had written hundreds of letters of whom some 20 survived to nowadays. Now suppose an article like this. "in 1420 Gjon wrote a letter to some merchants stating blababla....in 1421 Gjon wrote a letter to some merchants stating blablabla... 1422 on Gjon wrote another letter to some other merchants stating blablabla.... 1423 Gjon wrote a letter ....." This is not what you expect from an article, that's why interpretations of scholars are used in article. Now compare above blablabla with this: On 1420 the territory of Kastrioti principality extended from X to Y (scholar interpretation of letter 1420)... On 1421 he had already accepted the suzerainty of Sultan (scholar interpretation of letter 1421).....In 1422 Gjon revolted against Sultan but he was defeated and his country destroyed (scholar interpretation of letter 1422)....In 1423 he asked help from some merchants in stabilizing the finances of his dominions (scholar interpretation of letter 1423)... This last form is a history article, while the former is not. Just notice the difference here and have a look on other articles. See what I am talking about. Aigest (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not use primary source to support the information added to article. Please don't repeat the same arguments until you can provide link to wikipedia policy which support your arguments.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Read Secondary source. "Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." Jirecek did not anything like this, he had only reported the discovering of a letter. That's why he is qualified as primary and not secondary source in this case. This is a typical case of academic writing showing why primary sources should not be used and that's why you see the differences on articles style mentioned by me above: Academic style (based on interpretation of secondary sources) vs non-Academic style (based on simple reporting of primary sources) Aigest (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I did read the link you provided. It is not a link to a policy which recommend removal of the information about the existence of primary sources or letters in wikipedia articles although that existence is supported with reliable secondary sources. Jiriček can not be classified as primary source because he lived almost 500 years after the event he described. Why do you treat Gjon's/Ivan's letter as primary source? Treat it as a letter. Gjon wrote a letter to the merchants from Dubrovnik. That is information. That information is supported with secondary source written by notable scholar. If you have another source which claim that Gjon/Ivan did not write that letter, then please add it to the article. Otherwise please stop your attempts to remove information which is supported with referenced secondary source written by authoritative scholar.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not the problem if the letter was written or not and also it doesn't matter that Jirecek lived later or earlier, or whenever in the universe of time. The fact is that he didn't gave any kind of interpretation but just reported a letters' text, without any interpretation whatsoever. This makes him a primary source on that letter. I've already explained you that in wikipedia we use secondary sources because we need scholars' analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information. Jirecek did not made any analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information on this particular case, thus it is classified as primary. If another scholar would make an interpretation on the text that Jirecek gives, that scholar is considered secondary. Even if Jirecek himself had interpreted the text would have been considered secondary, but he did not. Thus is considered primary source. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Not following that rule it means rubbish articles of no academic style and use. Aigest (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that you did not provide arguments (grounded in wikipedia policies or common sense) for your intention to remove information (which is supported with referenced secondary source written by authoritative scholar) about existence of the letter written by Gjon/Ivan to merchants from Dubrovnik. If you don't agree with me and still insist on removal of that information, please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution recommendations.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Antid. wikipedia can't mention every single letter of someone's correspondence regardless of the reliability issues.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Aigest, your removal of referenced source is disruptive behaviour and could be interpreted by someone, not me, as tendentious editing because removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information. Nevertheless, I found source which further interpret that letter, like you insisted (Archiv für slavische Philologie (in German), vol. 21, Weidmann, 1899, p. 95, 1420, 25. Februar. Geleitsbrief des Herrn Ivan (Kastriota) und seiner Sühne filr die Kaufleute von Ragusa auf dem Wege durch sein Land von Sufadaja (bei Alessio) nach Prizren, nebst Bestimmungen Uber die Zölle. {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |editorn-last=, |coauthors=, |doi-inactive-date=, |editorn-link=, |nopp=, |separator=, |laysummary=, |editorn=, |editorn-first=, |month=, |chapterurl=, |author-separator=, and |lastauthoramp= (help); Unknown parameter |firstn= ignored (help)). This source present interpretation of Ivan's letter. Among other things, it says that with that letter Ivan informed merchants from Dubrovnik that they were granted safe conduct when passing the land under his control, on their way to Prizren.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not an interpretation, instead it is merely telling part of the text. However you should change your method of doing things. You insist on using primary sources which are easily misinterpreted, instead of using secondary sources which deal in detail with the topic. This case in hand is another example of your wrong method and I'll explain you why. The same document is published, studied and commented on Gjergj Kastrioti Skënderbeu: jeta dhe vepra, 1405–1468, Frashëri, Kristo (2002) (in Albanian), Botimet Toena, ISBN 9992716274. In four pages there is a photocopy of the document, what does it talk about and the interpretation (date, sons, borders, political situation etc) and that is from a book which deals with Skanderbeg and its family and published in 2002!! But hey, instead of using it, you insist on using primary sources of 1899, of which Kastrioti family was not even the topic!?!?

Just for showing you your wrong way of doing things which is against wiki rules I inform you that while you claim that "On February 25, 1420 Gjon Kastriot wrote a letter on Serbian language to merchants from Dubrovnik" actually " the document dated February 25, 1420 is a notary act held in notary office in Dubrovnik". I suppose you know the difference between them. This is the risk of following your method. A misinterpreted, unhistorical and nonacademic article. I strongly suggest you to actually read the right sources before editing here. You want to edit about Skanderbeg family? Ok no problem, but you have to read Noli, Frasheri, Bicoku, Shmitt, Hodgkinson, Plasari (latest book on Skanderbeg "Skënderbeu: një histori politike."(Skanderbeg: a political history) Author Plasari, Aurel. Publisher Gjergj Fishta ISBN: 9789995685508 Tiranë 2010). These are his main biographers, familiarize with them, then come here in wikipedia and edit. Aigest (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I will deal with that document interpretation when I'll find sometime. If you really want to use it than read Frasheri 2002. As I told you he dedicates 4 pages to that document. Aigest (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "you insist on using primary sources": I did not insist on primary sources. The sources I used are written almost 500 years after that document
• "your wrong way of doing things which is against wiki rules": Please be so kind to explain this accusation and present wiki rules which I violated and explain how.
• "against wiki rules". Let me explain where you violated wikipedia rules and removed statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. You did it with this edit. You misused this discussion about letter which is maybe not a letter but a notary act, and based on that discussion ("Explained in the talk page." was your explanation in the Edit summary) you deleted the following sentence about merchants from Dubrovnik: Based on the order of despot of Serbia, when they traveled from Dubrovnik to Prizren they had to use the route trough Shkodër in Albania Veneta and the Kastriot's land instead of the previous route trough the land under control of the small feudal lords and highlander tribes of Montenegro. Based on my experience with your editing in other articles on wikipedia I can notice that this is not the first time you try to remove informations which presents connection between people from Albania and Serbia despite they are supported with reliable sources. Please take in consideration that someone, not me, could see it as a pattern of tendentious editing.
• If there are sources which interpret this letter on different way, then we should follow NPOV policy and present all views to the readers. Please AGF. Till now, the only thing you disputed in the text which I added is that Gjon did not write a letter but notary act. If you present more reliable sources written by contemporary historians who support your claim that it was not a letter but notary act, I will, of course, agree to change word letter to notary act.
• "misinterpreted, unhistorical and nonacademic": I supported informations I added into this article with sources, one is written by Konstantin Jireček who was a professor of history at Prague University. I provided a quote and all details to this work which is available online. Will you please be so kind to support your accusations and provide links with explanation where exactly I misinterpreted sources I used?
• There is no need for shouting on me. Will you please be so kind and stop using !! signs in your communication with me.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(Ignoring WP:IDONTHEARTHAT trolling attitude) From what you state above I can see that you will not read those authors, but you will insist to edit in this topic anyway. Good luck on that, but don't be surprised if your edit will be challenged and removed accordingly. Aigest (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

How can you accuse me for WP:IDONTHEARTHAT? Although you violated wikipedia rules and removed statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style I provided source which interprets the letter the way you wanted to?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Like you requested, I tried to read more sources about this letter and I found more sources which confirm that letter existed and that its legal form was charter (isprava, povelja). Here are some of them:

• Državna uprava u srpskim srednjovekovnim zemljama "На исправи коју је Иван Кастриот издао 25. II 1420. године Дубровчанима помиње се, такоће, само један милосник."... On the charter issued by Ivan Kastriot on February 25, 1420 to Ragusians there is only one milosnik (kind of notary - Antidiskriminator) mentioned.
• Istoriski časopis, Volume 56 "Иван Кастриот jе 1420. гарантовао Дубровчанима да могу ипи "у земљу Ђурђеву или господина деспота" ... Ivan Kastriot guaranteed to Ragusians that they can go to the land of Đurađ or to the land of despot"
• Stare srpske povelje i pisma: Dubrovnik i susedi njegovi, Book 19; Book 24 ... Иван Кастриот 1420, бр. 793 ... Даје повластице трговцима и одређује царину, 1420, 25. Фебруара 1420 ... Ivan Kastriot 1420... grants privileges to merchants and declares taxes they should pay
• Prilozi za književnost, jezik, istoriju i folklor, Volume 26 Иван Кастриот, у фебруару 1420, гаранте Дубровчанима да могу слободно „миноути моомь земломь оу землю Гюрпевоу...И из повеље Ивана Кастриота.... може се само закључити да је Призрен био у Ђурђевој власти ... Ivan Kastriot in february 1420 guarantees to Ragusians that they can have safely "pass my lands into lands of Đurđe...From charter of Ivan Kastriot ... we can conclude that Prizren was under Đurđe's control"
• Glas, Volume 338 Иван Кастриот са синовима такође им је 1420. год. гарантовао безбедност и пратњу кроз своју земљу ... Ivan Kastriot and his sons also in 1420 guaranteed them safety and escort trough his land....

Rečnik naših starih mera u toku vekova, Volume 472 Иван Кастриотић утврдио 1420. за дубровачке трговце царину на "товарв свите"... In 1420 Ivan Kastriotić determined the customs for merchants from Dubrovnik based on "caravan load" (Antdiskriminator's translation)

All presented sources support the information which I added to this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 08:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Gjon Kastrioti → John Castriot – per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) "It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English...".

Gjon :

• "gjon kastrioti" -Llc - 81 hits
• "Gjon castriot" -Llc - 2 hits
• "Gjon castrioti" -Llc - 8 hits
• "Gjon castriota" -Llc - 1 hit
• "gjon kastriot" -Llc - 4 hits
• "gjon kastriota" -Llc - 0 hits

John:

• "John kastrioti" -Llc - 42 hits
• "John castriot" -Llc - 737 hits
• "John castrioti" -Llc - 4 hits
• "John castriota" -Llc - 272 hits
• "John kastriot" -Llc - 3 hits
• "John kastriota" -Llc - 35 hits

John Castriot is most common form of his name. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as most of the John Castriot results reflect outdated use i.e. only two 21st century works use that form. For another discussion regarding modern vs. outdated uses check the move discussion on Palaiologos.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per 21stC sources such as Thammy Evans Bradt Guide Macedonia 2010 Page 234 "Gjergj Kastrioti is known as the greatest hero of the Albanians for freeing and uniting all Albanians against the Turks ... Gjergj was born in Kruja, Arberia (today's Albania), to the Lord of Middle Arberia, Gjon Kastrioti, and Voisava, " In ictu oculi (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Antidiskriminator is right in his point which form of the surname is most common overall in English, as "George Castriot" wins over Kastriot/Kastrioti/Kastriota. For 21st-c sources "Gjon Kastrioti" is the most used (71 vs. 8) so Zjarri is right when bringing up Palaiologos. I think it'd be best if we use one spelling for all members. For their surname overall, "Castriot" is used the most, but not in 21st-c sources. --Zoupan 16:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction. It is not 71, but 17 (after deghosting).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Also the Gjon Kastrioti version prevails in sources after 1920. Given the statistics, Antid's request essentially supports a return to the common use of the 19th century.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What about John Kastrioti? There is a discussion on whether all medieval Stefan/Stjepan/... should change into Stephen, despite predominant English usage of "Stefan".--Zoupan 21:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

John Kastrioti is uncommon.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought of a mix with anglicized given name and native surname.--Zoupan 21:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"Given the statistics, Antid's request essentially supports a return to the common use of the 19th century." - Incorrect. Below is statistics for after 19th century sources:

Statistics for after 19th century sources
Gjon : "gjon kastrioti" -Llc - 37 hits "Gjon castriot" -Llc - 2 hits "Gjon castrioti" -Llc - 8 hits "Gjon castriota" -Llc - 1 hit "gjon kastriot" -Llc - 2 hits "gjon kastriota" -Llc - 0 hits John: "John kastrioti" -Llc - 22 hits "John castriot" -Llc - 45 hits "John castrioti" -Llc - 3 hits "John castriota" -Llc - 48 hits "John kastriot" -Llc - 3 hits "John kastriota" -Llc - 16 hits

In after 19th century sources form "John Castriot(a, i)" is also most commonly used (more than all other 9 forms together). In after 19th century sources John:Gjon=137:50 and Castriot(i,a):Kastriot(i,a)=107:43. In all sources John:Gjon=1,093:96 and Castriot(i,a):Kastriot(i,a)=1,024:165.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've already mentioned the extremely low number of 21st sources mentioning the form you're POV-pushing i.e. outdated.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Please don't violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY.

Below are 21st century results only:

Statistics for 21st century sources only
Gjon : "gjon kastrioti" -Llc - 17 hits "Gjon castriot" -Llc - 0 hits "Gjon castrioti" -Llc - 5 hits "Gjon castriota" -Llc - 0 hit "gjon kastriot" -Llc - 2 hits "gjon kastriota" -Llc - 0 hits John: "John kastrioti" -Llc - 9 hits "John castriot" -Llc - 7 hits "John castrioti" -Llc - 0 hits "John castriota" -Llc - 7 hits "John kastriot" -Llc - 1 hits "John kastriota" -Llc - 5 hits

First name: Most of the sources use John form of his first name, including the 21st century sources.

Family name: Kastriot(i,a) form of the last name has small advantage (34:19) only in case of sources written only in 21st century. I think that none of those sources are written by some major expert in this field. The most credible English language experts who are specialists in the subject use Castriot form: (Kenneth Setton, Franz Babinger [1], John Van Antwerp Fine [2],...). Even Albanian scholars support C form of family name when they write on English, like Fan Noli for whom you ZjarriRrethues wrote "his biography is considered by scholars one of the best works about Skanderbeg"[3]. This form is also supported by Nelo Drizari [4] and Arshi Pipa [5]. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support per proposal description/common usage. Also Bradt guide publishers are not a reliable source, they treat Kosovo like a country, give Albanian-majority settlements their Albanian name in contrast to English usage down the years; the Serbian guide excludes Kosovo on the map and is therefore an affront to the nation, and the girl who published Macedonia is just an ameteur travel writer who quickly learnt bits of the language and the region before writing her book. It is riddled with errors. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the most used form is Gjon Kastrioti vs Jon Castrioti. I check it out also on google scholar which confirm what I say. To lazy to post them here. Check them out yourselves Aigest (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Incorrect. Google Scholar hits for English sources are presented below:
• "gjon kastrioti" - 19 hits
• "John Castriot" - 41 hits

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I get 50 results in total regarding Gjon Kastrioti (~40 after the 1950s). The John Castriot results from 1920 to 2012 are 4 (one is a 1881 republishing), of which only 1 was published after the 1950s (the rest were published in 1927-38-53)--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, there are only 19 hits for Gjon.

What you wrote is probably supporting my proposal because it actually proves that Gjon version does not even exist in GoogleScholar English sources before 1950.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

We can write it in Linear B then, it is long before 1950 :) (just a joke, no intend to offend anybody). What kind of argument is that? We are all saying that later English sources use Gjon Kastrioti form (see user:ZR results). This wiki article title is up to its time. Aigest (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• What you did is not funny. You presented false search results as basis for your oppose !vote.
• Let me remind you about later English sources (after 19th century results): John:Gjon=137:50 and Castriot(i,a):Kastriot(i,a)=107:43.
• Let me also remind you that major scholars including many Albanian ones use John Castriot form.
• There are not many works about John Castriot written in 21st century. Only 3.7% of all works about John Castriot (44 of 1,189 totally) are written in 21st century and only 17 of them support current name version. I don't think it is appropriate to use only 21st century works as basis for decision.
• Gjon Kastrioti version is used in 6,8% of total works (81 out of 1,189) while John Castriot version is used in 61.98% of all works(737 of 1.189). John Castriot(a,i) is used in 1,013 works which is 85% of all works.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) Please don't misrepresent the results Antidiskriminator and as Aigest said focus on modern results. Since the start your proposal has been about a return to the common use of the 19th century, however, wikipedia article titles are based on the common use of modern scholarship otherwise we'd use Anglicized/Latinized titles for most bios of personalities that lived before that era.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Again incorrect. Here is a diff with Aigest's oppose !vote based on false search results. I am sure there is no need to explain that "modern scholarship" consisting of 17 works is not something you can use to support your position. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, the only reason for Gjon having an article in WP, is because he was Scanderbeg's father. So Gjon, is according to me the best suited article name. Majuru (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. John meets Wikipedia:Notability requests regardless of him being Skanderbeg's father.

Will you please be so kind to explain what does him being Skanderbeg's father have to do with the name of this article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem of Gjon/John's name is not that simple, because the Italians called him Giovanni, the Latin sources give Johannes, Slavs name him Ivan etc., all being perfectly equal because it's the same John anyway. Being an Albanian, and the father of GCS, it would be natural to call him Gjon. Not that John subtracts anything to his ethnicity... Majuru (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ethnicity issue

The problem of Gjon/John's name is not that simple, because the Italians called him Giovanni, the Latin sources give Johannes, Slavs name him Ivan etc., all being perfectly equal because it's the same John anyway. Being an Albanian, and the father of GCS, it would be natural to call him Gjon. Not that John subtracts anything to his ethnicity... Majuru (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

His (non-)Albanian ethnicity is irrelevant for this discussion. According to sources he was of Serb origin, with some of them (like Sufflay) emphasizing his Greek origin.

I noticed that you respect Sufflay when it comes to ethnicity. Sufflay claims that Gjon/Ivan was of Greek origin.

• Source: Šufflay, Milan (2000), Izabrani politički spisi (in Croatian), Matica hrvatska, p. 148, ISBN 9789531502573, OCLC 48538256, U Valoni, na dvoru despota Jovana Komnena-Asena (1350. - 1363.), šurjaka cara Dušana i brata bugarskog cara Jovana Aleksandra, stajala je kolijevka moći Kastriota. U jednoj srpskoj povelji "avlonskog i kaninskog gospodina" Aleksandra, valjada sina despota Jovana, spominje se (1366) "ćefalija Kaninski Kastriot". Kako mu to pokazuje ime, taj ćefalija bio je podrijetlom Grk. Od Balše II dobio je on u leno dva sela u srednjoj Albaniji na Matu. Njegov potomak Ivan, "gospodin Ivan" u srpskim poveljama, "Ivan Castrioth" u mletačkim spomenicima... {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |editorn-last=, |doi-inactive-date=, |editorn-link=, |nopp=, |separator=, |laysummary=, |editorn=, |editorn-first=, |month=, |chapterurl=, |author-separator=, and |lastauthoramp= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |firstn= ignored (help)

Majuru, If you want to add Sufflay's opinion that Gjon was of Greek origin I will not object. Do you want to do it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused: Suflay says that the Grek "kefalia" is Greek in general, originally a Greek title, or that this particular "kefalia", John in this case is of Greek origin? Because the Branilo discussion making him Serbian etc., is lame. Majuru (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I will try to explain. Sufflay, who you respect very much when it comes to ethnicity, claims that ancestor of Ivan is of Greek origin. Please answer my question: do you want to add Sufflay's opinion that Gjon was of Greek origin?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I respect very much Suflay, for his Acta et Diplomata, yet it is historical truth that I respect most. There is no link between Gjon and the kefalija of Avlona and Kanina, beside the name. Majuru (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Now I am confused.

Here is what Suflay, who you respect very much, says about kephale of Kanina: "Njegov potomak Ivan, "gospodin Ivan" u srpskim poveljama, "Ivan Castrioth" u mletačkim spomenicima" (translated: his descendant is Ivan, "gospodin Ivan" in charters on Serbian language or "Ivan Castrioth" in venetian documents).

Please clarify your position. Do you respect Suflay or not?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

'Issue' with infobox

It would be appreciated if someone who actually knows what is being referenced in the infobox under 'Issue' were to tidy it up. 'Issue' means children, not issues he dealt with. I'll try to get around to tidying it up myself at some point, but have such a backlog of copyediting, etc. that it won't happen for at least a couple of years. Cheers for any assistance! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ivan Kastriota's name

1. Ludwig von Thallóczy and Konstantin Jireček state that the name of Ivan Kastriota in contemporaneous documents is Iuanus (Ivan!) and not the albanized form Gjon:

Ivan Kastriota, Iuanus Castrioti der Zeitgenossen, ist aus dem Urkundenmaterial dieser Zeit gut bekannt.

— Ludwig von Thallóczy, Konstantin Jireček, "Zwei Urkunden aus Nordalbanien", Archiv für slavische Philologie (1899), Vol. 21, p. 88[6]

2. In a rather harsh critic to Athanase Gegaj and his book L'Albanie et l'Invasion turque au XV-e siècle, François Pall supports Nicolae Iorga and states that the name Ivan is used to refer to Ivan Kastriota in Ragusan and Venetian documents, as well as by the Byzantine historian Laonikos Chalkokondyles:

Ce n'est pas M. Iorga seul qui „attribue“ (ibid) le nom d'„Ivan“ au père de Scanderbeg, ce sont également les documents vénitiens et ragusains (Iuanus; voy un exemple chez M. Gegaj même, p. 40, note 2), aussi bien que Chalkokandyles...

— François Pall, "Une nouvelle histoire de Scanderbeg (Remarques sur le livre de M. Gegaj)", Revue historique du Sud-Est européen (1937), Vol. 14, p. 298[7]

3. Bogumil Hrabak in one of his studies reiterates the same and states that the name Ivan was the only name by which Ivan Kastriota was recorded:

Gospodar Šufadaja bio je Ivan Kastriot (koji se kao Ivan uvek beleži)...

— Bogumil Hrabak, "Širenje arbanaških stočara po ravnicama i slovenski ratari srednjovekovne Albanije", Stanovništvo slovenskog porijekla u Albaniji (1990)[8]

4. Oliver Jens Schmitt states that when the Ottomans arrived in Albania, that they gave names to the local landscapes after their former masters, which in Ivan Kastriota's case is Yuvan-ili, after his first name Ivan or Jovan:

Die Osmanen bekundeten ohnehin keine Berührungsängste mit den vorosmanischen Zuständen; sie benannten die meisten Landschaften nach ihren früheren Herren, das Balšaland (Balşa-ili) zwischen dem späteren Ort Kavaja und der Shkumbinmündung, Jonima-Land (nördlich des heutigen Peqin), das Land des Pavlo-Kurtik, des Kondo-Miho und des Bogdan Ripe (alles sonst unbekannte Kleinhenen mit typisch orthodoxen Namen) um den Fluss Shkumbin, Ashtin-ili um Permeti, Zenebish-ili um Gjirokastra, im Norden schließlich auch Jovans Land (Yuvan-ili, das Gebiet von Skanderbegs Vater Ivan oder Jovan Kastriota).

— Oliver Jens Schmitt, Skanderbeg: der neue Alexander auf dem Balkan (2009), p. 24

Xhfgsepfiuh (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar.

• Comment - Good point. All relevant names of the subject of this article should be presented to readers. That is why I will restore recent unexplained removal (diff) of cited text which presents more names used in sources and literature to refer to the subject in question if nobody presents valid arguments against it within reasonable period of time, say a week.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not about presenting all of the names in a separate section to the readership, but providing the correct one instead! Throwing in all of the forms of this name recorded in different languages doesn't clarify anything. On the contrary, it is causing confusion instead. This article should be renamed into Ivan Kastriot, the way contemporary sources recorded him. Xhfgsepfiuh (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar.

The encyclopedicity of the names is in that a user may find a form of the name in various texts, other than albanian made. No serious source and archival source mentions any "Gjon Kastrioti", and so the door is open for missunderstandings. This is the use of WP. Btw, we should start a discussion on the conformity of the present title to the WP rules.--Skylax30 (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

How was named Gjon Kastrioti in obscure documents is not relevant. Almost no article on Wikipedia has such sections. Furthermore, there is a note on the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: "Obscure documents" by whose standards, yours!? You are drawing arbitrary conclusions without providing any supporting material for your distorted POV.[9] Furthermore, your approach is against one of the main Wikipedia policies, which is verifiability.[10] And lastly, by trying to banalize the importance of """Gjon Kastrioti's""" name, you are firstly and foremostly contradicting to yourself. If his name was truly that irrelevant, like you say, then why are you involving yourself in this discussion in the first place? Why such stern resistance against the renaming of the article? Why not simply rename it into Ivan Kastriot, like it should had been since day one? It is quite obvious that the proper form of his name is very important to this article. The same way as we do not anglicize Adolf Hitler's name into Adolph, the same way I expect that we do not albanize Ivan Kastriot's name into Gjon either.[11] Xhfgsepfiuh (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar.

Question: @Xhfgsepfiuh: as your edits appear to have an air of sophistication and only devoted to this article, are you a returning editor or a new one?Resnjari (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Many articles have a "name" section, including Skanderbeg. Some have a very extensive serction, like Arianiti family. I have more on the name, as it was used by authors as an indication of origin, therefore encyclopedic.

P.S. Commending on users is prohibited by WP, and cannot substitute arguments on the point.--Skylax30 (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. There is a note in the article, and no other similar stuff should ba added. If someone edits only in the way you are editing, causing pointless and boring discussions such as that on the Souliotes, reminding them about the rules is very constructive. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The editor @Xhfgsepfiuh appears to be a WP:SPA (single purpose account) created on 7 May 2018 posting only on this page. The thread "Ivan Kastriota's name" is sophisticated for a newbie who has made only 3 whole edits. On the issue of name, a note in the article based on sources exists for various forms since 2011 [12] in that format and not a separate name section in the article. That has been the consensus version. Skylax's recent addition [13] is a duplication of that information. What's the purpose of repeating the same thing?Resnjari (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, text should not be duplicated. Also, large pieces of text, other than quotations, are not suppposed to be in the notes.

Personal interpretations of "concensus" are welcome, but we don't have to aggree on them. If a line has been untouched for years, this doesn't necessarily mean concensus. Articles have to be improved.--Skylax30 (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Well your edit does not also signal consensus either.Resnjari (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, his edits do signal a general consensus in relation to Ivan Kastriot's name. He is relying on verifiable sources, whilst you don't. Xhfgsepfiuh (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar.

@Xhfgsepfiuh: Can you provide some Google Books on the name of Gjon Kastrioti? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: There's plenty of Google Books which support what I wrote above. I'd suggest you to cease with the willful ignorance and start corroborating your false POV instead. Xhfgsepfiuh (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar.

@Xhfgsepfiuh:, there is no consensus to your proposal on an issue where it has been discussed before at length and the article on that matter has been stable for years. Not only that you started a thread about a page move (on a article that has attracted controversies in the past) without initiating the proper process. Nonetheless the way you have gone about things displays sophistication, so once again i ask are you a returning editor or a new one? Best.Resnjari (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Xhfgsepfiuh: Either provide a few Google Books links or do not expect anybody to continue this discussion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the title of the article, per se, is a bias towards the albanian POV, but let it be. Trying to suppress the info about the name in a footnote, is too much.--Skylax30 (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Do not delete your own edits Calthinus![14] Secondly, all of the Kastriot family members starting from that Serbian Branilo and down to Đurađ Kastriot explicitly possessed Slavic names. I would also like to invite everybody to listen carefully to what a renown scholar Olsi Jazexhi himself says about the origin of Skanderbeg. This interview was conducted in English few days ago and should be of interest to the topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhb4SaECGbk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2sbh7jj150 Xhfgsepfiuh (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar.

I am completely in my rights to delete my edit as no one had replied to it-- it is you, Aleksandër_I_Madh_Është_Shqipëtar, who crossed the line of the rules by reverting me. But "renowned scholar Olsi Jazexhi"... okay. I suppose you also agree with the other things he says :)? I'm just gonna leave that there.-- Calthinus (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Olsi Jazexhi is quite an accomplished scholar, read his Curriculum Vitae.[15] Apart from that, Nathalie Clayer was part of the Examining Board of the mentioned PhD thesis by Olsi Jazexhi, a scholar of world repute and the author of The origins of Albanian nationalism.[16] I would warmly recommend you to read that book which is also available in Albanian.[17] Not agreeing with what Olsi Jazexhi says would be next to mildly autistic. Xhfgsepfiuh (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar.

What I see in this talk page, is a confused mixture of two different discussions combined with lots of personal comments and accusations and spiced with edit warring in the article. The result is completely useless. Could we please take a time-out now and try to be constructive? We need to sort out two different discussions: One is the title of the article, the other one is the presentation of the many different names used for the person described in the article.

Regarding the title, it has to be solved through a requested move. There was a RM some years ago about moving it to "John Castriot". The result was "no consensus", and the page was not moved. Any new attempt to move the page will have to go through the same procedure. There is no other way.

The other question, whether the presentation of names should be made through a note or through a separate "Name" section, would normally be possible to solve through an ordinary talk page discussion, but seeing the temperature of this discussion, I would strongly advice to use a request for comments. It takes time, but the benefits are large: More people would participate (for example those of us who are shunning the current discussion because of the heated tone). Also, it would be possible to close the discussion with a formal consensus, thus avoiding more disruptive debates at least for a while.

The current consensus is to present the names as a note. Yes, that's right: When the introduction of the note some years ago has been unchallenged since, it is defined as a consensus. But consensus can change. Given the temperature here, I see no better way to define the current consensus than to open a RfC.

I suggest that the current discussion is closed immediately and that we start from scratch with the two discussions. And please: WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and all that. This discussion has gone too far off the mark. --T*U (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

TU-nor my apologies, you are right, and I have perhaps been part of the problem here. I tried to delete my original post but when that was reverted I shouldn't have let myself go a bit. Wiki can be frustrating for reasons that are not the topic of this page. My bad. ---- Calthinus (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

We need to sort out two different discussions: One is the title of the article, the other one is the presentation of the many different names used for the person described in the article.
— User:TU-nor 18:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

That is one and the same thing. We need to determine the authentic name of our subject in question and not the variances which derive from that name in foreign languages. For example, with Adolf Hitler, we mean a specific historical personality. Not just any Adolf Hitler, Adolfo, Adolphus, Adolph, etc., but the Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany.[18] By the same token, when we are referring to Ivan Kastriot, we mean the Ivan in its original form from those contemporaneous records of the time, not the Turkicised Yuvan-ili(Jovan), not the Anglicised John(Jovan), not the Latinised Iuanus(Ivan) and neither the Albanised Gjon. Our terminus is therefore only Ivan, and that is it. Those variances are truly irrelevant like the username Ktrimi991 says, but not the name Ivan which is authentic. Xhfgsepfiuh (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar.

Xhfgsepfiuh: But there are two different discussions. A change of an article title in Wikipedia is actually a page move, and it requires a consensus for moving. Since the current title is/was decided through a requested move, the only way to do a change is through a new move request. Please note that the article title is usually governed by the Wikipedia guideline WP:COMMONNAME, not by the "official name" or the "authentic name" (whatever that means).

Whatever name the article ends up with, I hope you will not disagree that other name forms have to be mentioned in the article. Currently they are mentioned in a note, but some editors want it to be presented in a "Name" section, as is done in many other articles. That is another discussion, regardless of the article title. --T*U (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

But there are two different discussions. A change of an article title in Wikipedia is actually a page move, and it requires a consensus for moving. Since the current title is/was decided through a requested move, the only way to do a change is through a new move request. Please note that the article title is usually governed by the Wikipedia guideline WP:COMMONNAME, not by the "official name" or the "authentic name" (whatever that means).
— User:TU-nor 09:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is the expression I was looking for. Based on past discussion, I believe that either Ivan Kastriot or Ivan Kastriota would comply to the WP:COMMONNAME guidelines.[19][20][21][22]

Whatever name the article ends up with, I hope you will not disagree that other name forms have to be mentioned in the article. Currently they are mentioned in a note, but some editors want it to be presented in a "Name" section, as is done in many other articles. That is another discussion, regardless of the article title.
— User:TU-nor 09:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, I do not object to a separate Name section. On the contrary, I welcome it. I was only implying that solving the title of the article should be regarded as of primary importance, whereas adding a separate Name section should be considered as of minor or secondary importance. It appears that the editors are mostly disturbed by the current title naming. Xhfgsepfiuh (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar.

Everyone in the Balkans has their idea of "authentic". @Xhfgsepfiuh:, you still haven't answered a question i posed to you. Are you a new editor or a returning one as your edit history reveals all your edits are geared toward just this one article (typical of a wp:SPA account) and are sophisticated for a newbie.Resnjari (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Ιn the english WP, we don't have to look for the "authentic" name for the title, but the one used in english. The really authentic name is either in greek (Ιβάνης/Ιωάννης Καστριώτης, as written in his contemporary chronographers) or latin, or possibly slavonic. There are no primary sources in albanian about him. An albanian form of name that appeared in the 20th c. can be in the first lines of the LEAD, not in the title. Oliver Schmitt calls him with various forms of the name (including Ivan and Gjon), trying to be politically "unbiased" (he doesn't want to be unwanted in Albania, I suppose). Therefore he cannot be helpful on that. --Skylax30 (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Ivanis contains the root Ivan with a Greek ending/suffix -is attached to it.[23] Thence, you will read his name as Ivanis Kastriotis. It is a Slavic name written according to the Greek phonetic rules and accentuation.

Oliver J. Schmitt refers to him as Ivan Kastriota. Since you have evidently read the book, and since someone needs to cut the Gordian knot, I'd suggest you to turn on page 32 where he draws The Family Tree of the Kastriota Family in 15th Century. There he lists the names like Paul, Ivan, Georg, Repoš, Konstantin, Staniša, etc. Of course, you can always Anglicise them into John Castriota, George Castriota, etc., but things can get quickly vexed when you will need to convert the names of the rest of the Kastriot(a) family. There is at least a dozen of other articles which are related and need to be renamed.[24] Xhfgsepfiuh (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar.

Xhfgsepfiuh, apart from your account being a wp:SPA, your comments are veering toward WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in your views about "at least a dozen of other articles" on pagemoves. Your edits here are sophisticated. @Xhfgsepfiuh, are you a returning editor or a new editor?Resnjari (talk) 06:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Request has been struck, rendering the request void; no consensus. No prejudice towards users in good standing who wish to re-initiate a simpler request. wbm1058 (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

---

• Gjon Kastrioti → Ivan Kastriota
• Skanderbeg → George Kastriota - Skanderbeg
• House of Kastrioti → House of Kastriota

– Current names of these articles do not comply with the WP:COMMONNAME guidelines. They are a fruit of the 19th and 20th-century romanticist writings by the Albanian National Awakening authors and are therefore not grounded in science nor the testified historical documentation (See past discussion[25]). Xhfgsepfiuh (talk) 07:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC) --> Blocked sock:Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar.

• Oppose all initially proposed, support moving Gjon Kastrioti to "John Castriot" or similar: The proposing editor may have misunderstood the WP:COMMONNAME policy. There is no indication that the proposed names are the commonly used names in English-language reliable sources, and the editor has not even tried to support the claim with links to any sources. In the discussion they link to, I find sources in German, French and Slavic, but not in English.

Let's take a look at Google Books:

"Ivan Kastriota" OR "Ivan Kastriot" -llc -Wikipedia gives 127 hits

"Gjon Kastrioti" -llc -Wikipedia gives 276 hits
(The counting in Google books search is not working properly here. It says 1220, but I have counted them.)

"house of kastrioti" -llc -wikipedia gives four hits

"house of kastriota" -llc -wikipedia gives zero hits

I do not even bother with the Skanderbeg suggestion, since "George Kastriota - Skanderbeg" is so obviously not the common name in English.

Then Google Scholar:

"Ivan Kastriota" OR "Ivan Kastriot" -llc -Wikipedia (searching only English pages) gives three results

"Gjon Kastrioti" -llc -Wikipedia gives 25 results

House of Kastrioti/House of Kastriota has too few hits (one against zero) to be considered here.

And just for the record:

"John Castriot" -llc -Wikipedia in Google Books gives 225 hits

"John Castriot" -llc -Wikipedia in Google Scholar gives 27 results

"John Castriot" is a relevant candidate to WP:COMMONNAME, "Ivan Kastriot(a)" is not. --T*U (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Addition: The Google Books searches are not limited to English language books. Many books in the Ivan and Gjon searches are in other languages, especially in the Ivan search. That would actually be another argument for moving the page to John! --T*U (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment on the above counts. There is no point counting every english text as "source". WP wants reliable sources, which in this case means non-nationalistic. Fore example, this one says "The Prince Gjon Kastrioti was the father of our national hero Gjergj Kastrioti ...", written by some S Papathimiu (a Greek surname, btw). Even Noli himself, an author respected by Albanians, calls him "John", 37 times in his monumental (for the Albanian ethnic identity) work on Skanderbeg [26]. Most of the english titles found in scholar.google about "Gjon" are authored by Albanians (like Pahumi etc), others are exact copies of WP, and therefore no "scholar" at all, like that in the worldheritage-dot-org (for which I get the message that is black-listed), and are not 25, as TU-nor claims. --Skylax30 (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that the count does not give only reliable sources. The main point with the count was to show that "Ivan Kastrioti" is not the common name. Your suggestion of moving the page to the anglizised form "John" is another matter. Adding together sources for Castriot, Castriota, Castrioti, Kastriot etc., they by far outnumber any version of Gjon. The problem here is that the surname is given in so many different forms. Castriot seems to be most used, but this needs more research. Changes my !vote a bit. --T*U (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Agree on Skanderbeg → George Kastriota - Skanderbeg.
• Agree to Gjon Kastrioti → Ivan Kastriota, but as it will certainly attract here dozens of users and puppets warring, I propose Gjon Kastrioti → John Kastriota or Kastrioti which is more appropriate for the english WP and is found in bibliography. No opinion on Family of Kastrioti/Kastriota. It is the same, in my opinion.--Skylax30 (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. This is an entirely nonsensical request. The current pair of editors voting in support are advised to find more productive ways to edit wikipedia. And let's be real, if this goes through it will only be a year before unproductive editing on the Albanian side will start talking about "Marko Bocari" and etc. The vast majority of sources actually about the topic and larger Albanian/Ottoman/Balkan history published in English will use "Gjon Kastrioti". -- Calthinus (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: One does not corroborate the validity of the current titles by undermining the proposed alternatives. The ubiquity of Pals, Gjons, Gjergjs, etc., is not an argument for anything; these are still Albanian names, and they do not comply with the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Plain and simple. Even in the online version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, it stands that Gjergj and Gjon Kastrioti are specifically Albanian names.[27] Under E.J. Brill's Encyclopaedia of Islam (Second Edition), there is the following entry for Iskander Beg:

"... Ottoman name for George (Gjergj) Kastriota (b. 808/1405, d. 872/1468), in Western sources Scanderbeg, etc., hero of the Al-banian “resistance” to the Turks in the mid-9th/15th century.

By the first half of the 9th/15th century the Kastriota family, with their centre at Matia, had supplanted the Bashas as the most influential power of Northern Albania. They had acknowledged Ottoman suzerainty since 787/1385; Iskender’s father John/Ivan (in Ottoman sources Yovan) had been a buffer between the Venetians..."[28]

Same goes for other major encyclopedias. Thus we find John Castriot(a)/Kastriot(a), George Castriot(a)/Kastriot(a) in 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica[29], The New Encyclopaedia Britannica[30], The Encyclopedia Americana[31], The New Cambridge Medieval History[32], etc.

@Calthinus: Empty threats, stop it. Xhfgsepfiuh (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar.

Encyclopedia Britanica, printed edition, 1959, vol. 20, p. 726, artcl "Skanderbeg or George Castriota": "... The founder of the family Castriota was a certain Branilo, ... and whose grandson Giovanni, lord of Mat ... married Voisava Tripalda, daughter of a Serbian magnate." "Giovanni" is not english, but is neutral and historically correct, as it was used at G.Castrioti's time in official correspondence. It could possibly used here as a safe alternative, with a note that is used by Encyclop. Britanica. I want also to remind that the Albanian and other versions of the name will not vanish from the article. It will be stated in the first line that the name is written such and such in various languages and sources.--Skylax30 (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britanica online: "Skanderbeg, byname of George Kastrioti, or Castriota, Albanian Gjergj Kastrioti, (born 1405, northern Albania—died Jan. 17, 1468, Lezhë, Albania), national hero of the Albanians. A son of John (Gjon) Kastrioti ...". In this particular case, I think we should rely more on Encycl.Br. than on any Albanian author who writes in english, or the albanophile site of Mr. Elsie.--Skylax30 (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Compare with John Chrysostom, who was writing only in Greek, and is mentioned and venerated mostly by Greeks, but nobody demands that english WP calls him "Ioannes". Of course, Albanian WP calls him Gjoni Gojarti, and this is fine.--Skylax30 (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

There are lots of counter examples, like Ioannis Kapodistrias. Gjon Kastrioti remains the most common used name for him. Vargmali (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

At least Ioannis Kapodistrias was calling himself "Ioannis".--Skylax30 (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It is irrelevent how Kapodistrias was calling himself. The question lies on the popularity of each name. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, as per detailed reasons outlined by @TU-nor. Gjergj or George Kastrioti is known by his Ottoman sobriquet Skanderbeg/Scanderbeg then any other name.Resnjari (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose any move of Skanderbeg. Support a move of Gjon Kastrioti to John Castriot(a) per WP:UE. See this Google Ngram. —  AjaxSmack  15:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This shows "Gjon Kastrioti" has clearly been above "John Castriot" for most of the time since the fall of communism. While the two came close in the first decade of the 2000s, the final trend is Gjon Kastrioti increasing and John Castrioti decreasing, and Gjon Kastrioti has more hits the whole time. And then the timeline ends in 2008. The trend is clearer when you reduce smoothing to 1, rather than 3 [[33]] although admittedly there is one year, apparently 2005 where John Castriot was higher. Of course, we are missing 10 of the most important years here.---- Calthinus (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's 1990-2008 [[34]] ---- Calthinus (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

... which show that "John" titles still outnumber "Gjon" even in the most recent sources. I'm not sure why, with a subject who flourished nearly 600 years ago, we should limit ourselves to two decades of sources. —  AjaxSmack  20:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

"Even in the most recent"? Not so-- look at 2007 and 2008-- "Gjon Kastrioti" clearly outnumbers both the "John Castriot" and "John Castriota" terms combined. Yes I recognize this is nitpicking, but still. I would be very interested to see what hte stats are for the last 10 years. It does matter because since the fall of communism, most studies have become more integrated across former political boundaries, leading to (yes) more usage of the native Albanian names. Now, to be fair, in Medieval Albanian, which often used "C" instead of "K" (in those days Albania was very much influenced by Italian and even Norman connections), his name was very possibly written as something akin to "Jon Castrioti" which is ironically closer to "John Castriot". The shift of j>gj (the former being the "y" sound in Englihs, the latter being something like "I hadya") very possibly happened in Ottoman times though exactly when is unclear. However, this is the issue with Albanian history. Albanians used to have plenty of texts (there are references to their existence, such as "the Latins and the Albanians both write their own languages in Roman script" et cetera) but they were lost over the course of numerous invasions and rebellions that ripped up the country, and the only thing we have now from before the middle of the 2nd millennium is a baptismal formula. Perhaps (hopefully) there are still some left that are waiting to be found in some cellar somewhere. For us, as far as I've observed, the archaic English form of "John Castriot" occurs in older sources and more broad sources covering European history, Medieval/Renaissance history et cetera, while indepth works on this part of Albanian history will tend to use the Albanian form.-- Calthinus (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Google Scholar restricted to English pages and delimited to the years after 2000:

"Gjon Kastrioti" -llc -Wikipedia: 21 hits

"John Castriot" -llc -Wikipedia: 2 hits

If we try for all the different surname spellings of "John", we get

"John Castriot" OR "John Castrioti" OR "John Castriota" OR "John Kastriot" OR "John Kastrioti" OR "John Kastriota" -llc -Wikipedia: 15 hits

--T*U (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, as Google scholar demostrates "Gjon Kastrioti" is the most common used name by scholars. Vargmali (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: If I am not mistaken, in these discussions, arguments count, not votes. Additional "votes" from WikiProjectAlbania do not add credibility to the same recycled arguments.--Skylax30 (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above. Proposer (Xhfgsepfiuh) didn't provide cited reference supporting his claim. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment #2: T*U's weasel tricks with WP:GNUM hit counts are invalid and should be disregarded, as they are not a measurement for anything, especially not for the number of reliable sources counts. He pretends that I have misunderstood the WP:COMMONNAME policy, yet he fails to recognise the inadequacy of Albanian names in English spoken articles on his part.

On the other hand, as  AjaxSmack  already indicated, the non-existence of Pals, Gjons and Gjergjs is quite symptomatic for the period before 1950, which gives proof to very recent use of these names in literature.[35] The lack of the mentioning of these names in sources before 1950 testifies to the fact that they were coined very recently by Albanian authors and, therefore, do not comply with the WP:COMMONNAME policy. This problem becomes even more apparent when we extend the period back to the beginning of the 18th-century.[36]

Based on the results of the following Ngram, I suggest these names for the following articles:

Gjon Kastrioti → John Castriot

Pal Kastrioti → Paul Castriot

House of Kastrioti → The Castriot Family

Perhaps the official genealogy of the Castriot(a) family might be of help.[37] @Calthinus: Congratulations for that text, it really made me laugh. :) Xhfgsepfiuh (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar.

1) The relevant recommendation is WP:GOOG, the section "What a search test can do—and what it can't", not WP:GNUM, which is about using Google search for establishing notability, and that is not the question here. WP:GOOG explains how to use Google search in a best possible way, which I have tried to follow.

2) My "weasel tricks" were only used to show that there is no way "Ivan Kastriot(a)" is the WP:COMMONNAME. I have never claimed that all the hits found by the search were relevant. I have claimed that the search excludes the "Ivan" proposal, and that the search opens for discussion about moving "Gjon" to "John". I have, based on this, even changed my !vote to support a move to "John".

3) Since you no longer support your own original proposal, I suggest that you withdraw this RM and starts a new one with your new suggestions. As it stands now, people are invited to discuss a proposal that no one supports, which is kind of wasting people's time. --T*U (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

TU-nor I don't agree with your conclusion that the initial proposal is a proposal that no one supports. AjaxSmack supports a move of Gjon Kastrioti to John Castriot(a) and repeated their position presenting valid arguments. This is a discussion. The editor who made initial proposal and other editors are entitled to discuss the proposal and reach consensus, even if the consensus will be different then initial proposal (here, in case of some of three RM proposals). That does not mean that initial proposal has to be withrawn and new proposal started.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator: I, too, support the move to "John Castriot", as does now even the original proposer. But the initial proposal was a move to "Ivan Kastriota", something even the proposer does not support now. People who are summoned her by the RM, may vote "oppose" to "Ivan" without giving their view on "John", making it more difficult to close the RM. My concern is: There is a possibility that the RM may be closed with "not moved" (to "Ivan Kastriot(a)") even if there may be an unexpressed consensus for moving to "John Castriot(a)". --T*U (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

While I was writing the above, the proposer has been blocked as a sock, so the question of them withdrawing the proposal is moot. --T*U (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that the issue here is much wider than this article because it is neccesary to follow consistency criteria:

• The surname of this person is the same with many other members of Kastriot family. The most notable member of this family is Castriot while all others are Kastrioti.
• while many medieval people who lived in Albaina and whose names in original documents were Ivan or Jovan, whose name was translated to Albanian as neologism Gjon in post-1908 period sources. The most notable of them is Jovan, while the other are Gjons.

There were multiple discussions about this issues before, but the issue remained unresolved. My opinion is that this issue will remain unresolved. Therefore I propose to close this discussion without consensus. Those who really want to resolve the above mentioned issues should initiate wider discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

This proposal was three-in-one, and difficult to deal with. I think we should take the articles one by one. First: Gjon Castrioti > John Castrioti, then Skanderbeg --> George Castrioti/Kastriota/Castriota Skanderbegand, and then the obscure Gjon Muzaka > Giovanni Musacchi (as he signed). Btw, the latter can be confused with the Greek dish Musaka. The above discussion is not wasted. Some arguments can be copy-pasted to the new one. In the meanwhile, Τζερόνυμο can advertise the case to the rest of Eastern Mediterranean.--Skylax30 (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2 July 2018

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. Both names are permissible, but there is a clear absence of consensus for the proposed move at this time. bd2412 T 03:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Gjon Kastrioti → John Castriot – per WP:COMMONNAMES and WP:UE (use English). The forename Gjon appears to be a neologism and is less common than John. See this Google Ngram for comparison in print sources —  AjaxSmack  17:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

This request is a follow up on a recent previous discussion immediately above and is based on extensive input going back to a similar request in 2012. I have notified previous participants of this nomination.

Oppose as was previously discussed, the argument that the "John" variants are more predominant than the "Gjon" variants is not conclusive as it has been volatile throughout history and doesn't seem to be the case as per Google NGram [[38]] (using the 2005 finish year as done above instead of the 2008 is misleading, as 2005 was a very specific spike of the John variants that quickly dropped). We lack up to 2018 but in the last few years recorded the trend was in favor of hte "Gjon" variants. As pointed out by TU-nor, Google Scholar filtering out Wiki mirrors and only for English text shows a clear majority for "Gjon Kastrioti" with [21 hits for Gjon versus 17 for the John variants together]. Lastly, "neologism" argument -- this is simply false, it is the name the man has had in the Albanian language continuously (with sound changes occurring just as occurred for all other words and in all languages, leading to the modern form), along with his son Gjergj Kastrioti (Skanderbeg), and other Albanian feudal lords from the period such as Leke Dukagjini, Koja Zaharia, Gjin Bua Shpata et cetera who are referenced in Albanian folklore.Calthinus (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose According to the most interesting Ngram, in the last 20 years, most commonly used name is Gjon Kastrioti. That means that recent research or bibliography, prefers the Gjon version. I think WP should be up to date with the latest literature. If there is a clear difference in modern literature, we can discard the historic names more easily. Gjon has been in use for over 70 years, so it is difficult to defend the neologic argument. I have to say that there is increasing use of John Castriota. We might have the same discussion in 10 years or so, when new data emerge. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support There are three clear and undisputable facts supported by scientific consensus:
  1. The name of this man (attested in primary sources) was not Gjon.
  2. Most of English language sources refer to this person as John and his family as Castriot. All of English language sources until mid 20 century and most recent English language sources specialized in the topics refer to this person as John. That also supports fact num 1, John is not translation from Gjon. It corresponds to Jovan or Ivan. Just like in contemporary Serbian or Turkish language original documents. Јован and Yuvan.
  3. Gjon is Albanian language neologism (confirmed even by famous paid Albanophile Robert Elsie) reached by translation of non-Albanian name. Gjon has never been used for poor John all of his life and about 500 years after he died. There are some Albanians who indeed gave to their children this neologism names (Gjon, Gjergj, Gjin, Leke...). People who really received name Gjon were referred in most English, Serbian or Turkish language sources as Gjons. Not Johns, Jovans or Yuvans.
  • It is important to understand that poor John belongs to group of medieval people who were subjected to process of retrospective Albanian nationalization since late 19th century. This process attributed to them and to their activities Albanian nationalistic characteristics they never had. That way John also became part of several major constutive myths of Albanian nationalism. That is why closing administrator should take very good care when weighting !votes in this discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - As per all reasons opposing the move as outlined in the previous move discussion. Also the name Gjon for this person is not a neologism in the Albanian language. The earliest Albanian writer to mention him as Gjon is Frang Bardhi (1606–1643) in his book Apology, who calls him "Gion, which in Latin is Iohannis" (Blancus, Georgius Castriotus, 73: "Gion (id est Iohannis Latine) Castrati nuncupatus". This is outlined on the main article page on Gjon Kastrioti in the note section on his name. To @Antidiskriminator:, please refrain from making unfounded claims and allegations about scholar Robert Elsie being "paid" or other unless you have evidence. One other thing, the claim that the names "Gjon, Gjergj, Gjin, Leke" in Albanian are neologisms is false (for example see journal article "The Christian Saints in the (Micro)toponymy of Albania" [39] (2013) in Anglisticum Journal (IJLLIS) vol. 2 issue. 3 by Albert Riska). These names are old within the Albanian linguistic and cultural sphere.Resnjari (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Above mentioned "statistics", are irrelevant and ambivalent. The 2 or 3 persons around George Castrioti-Skanderbeg (including his father, but interestingly not his mother) are crucial for the Albanian national myth, and their forms of names very much implicated in the politics of various powers, with more recent the involvement of USA in the former Yugoslavia affairs in 1990's. Most english texts after 90's are politically tainted, especially those written by Albanian authors (like E.Leka, Prifti, Bislimi etc). John became "Gjon", and George became "Gjergj", because some american think tanks wanted so. The 21st century WP has no reason to get involved in the politics of the '90s, which only deepen the divides in that unfortunate area. It is safer to get informed by mainstream texts of the past, such as Encyclopedia Britanica: Printed edition, 1959, vol. 20, p. 726, article "Skanderbeg or George Castriota": "... The founder of the family Castriota was a certain Branilo, ... and whose grandson Giovanni, lord of Mat ... married Voisava Tripalda, daughter of a Serbian magnate." "Giovanni" is not proposed here, but is shows that it if has to be other than english, then it is not "Gjon". Giovanni is justified, as it was used at G.Castrioti's time in official correspondence, and himself signed so. Also, Encyclopedia Britanica online: "Skanderbeg, byname of George Kastrioti, or Castriota, Albanian Gjergj Kastrioti, (born 1405, northern Albania—died Jan. 17, 1468, Lezhë, Albania), national hero of the Albanians. A son of John (Gjon) Kastrioti ...". Even the Albanian historiographer of Skanderbeg, Fan Noli, writting in USA in 1945, mentions "John Castriot" in his work, not one, but 37 times Fan Noli, "George Castrioti Scanderbeg", pp 23, 86, 88, 89, 90 etc.--Skylax30 (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems strange to discard the bibliophraphy of the 90's, just to support the books of the 50's. As if going back in time, will let us find the "pure" or the "true" words or meanings. More, Britanica is a tetriary source, a very reliable one, but is not the Bible that we should follow unquestionably. Secondary sources are better, and in general, contemporary literature is always better and more trustworthy. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

In which case, "Ivan" is fine, because is used by Oliver Schmitt.--Skylax30 (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Only Schmitt wrote in German, not English. --T*U (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ivan is not German. It is an attested original form of the name. Either you take this, or you translitterate it to the respective WP language.--Skylax30 (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment - @Skylax30, you mentioned a lot of things in your post, like English sources being "politically tainted" due to politics in the 1990s in particular by Albanian authors, or American think tanks in making John into Gjon. My question to you is what evidence is there that what you say is factual? Because when one reads what you wrote it, a lot of it comes off as wp:idontlikeit. Resnjari (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

If President Bush's statue in Tirana could talk, it would certainly vote for "Gjon". But the wp:idontlikeit works for all. Why don't you like "John", for example?

@Skylax30:, now, now no need to get snippy. I asked you where is your evidence regarding all the allegations you made about the sources.Resnjari (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not going to do a doctoral research on the political use of the Skanderbeg mythology in Albania. There are several articles on that, and some can be found as references in Skanderbeg and eleswhere. I am talking to users who know and mind. If however, the discussion will be reduced to counting "hits" in the google, I am not going to waste my time fighting against the "Allies". In the Greek WP, a single administrator imposed the name Γκιον in the title (only in the title), which is not to be found in any greek text ever, old or new. This is how it works.--Skylax30 (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Skylax30, i know about the myth of Skanderbeg and i don't adhere to it (not born or from Albania/Kosovo, neither my parents or grandparents etc). All Balkan nationalisms have myths like 'liberation from Ottoman rule myths' and 'supposed descent from ancient progenitors and stupid and silly fights over who can claim that legacy'. Anyway, on Greek Wikipedia you tried this with the Greek language version of the article ? Curious as you have been sanctioned much over there. So i ask again what is your evidence for making allegations against a large swath of academia? You either have evidence or its just conjecture on your part.Resnjari (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Weak support I am uncertain about this one. The common usage in English has obviously been John up to the last part of the 20th century, but usage seems to be changing. I will try some more of my (infamous?) Google searches. This time I will sort out those sources that only uses one of the names and avoid those who mention both names. I will also test out different time spans. As before, there is no guarantee that all the hits are reliable sources, but that goes for both sides.

Google Scholar

"John Castriot" OR "John Castrioti" OR "John Castriota" OR "John Kastriot" OR "John Kastrioti" OR "John Kastriota" -"Gjon Kastrioti" -llc -Wikipedia will find the sources that uses "Gjon" and does not use any of the "John" versions.

1950-1980 6 hits

1980-2000 6 hits

2000-2010 12 hits

2010-present 7 hits

"Gjon Kastrioti" -"John Castriot" -"John Castrioti" -"John Castriota" -"John Kastriot" -"John Kastrioti" -"John Kastriota" -llc -Wikipedia will find those that use one of the "John" versions and does not mention "Gjon".

1950-1980 1 hit

1980-2010 1 hit

2000-2010 8 hits

2010-present 15 hits, of which 1 in Turkish

Google Books

"John Castriot" OR "John Castrioti" OR "John Castriota" OR "John Kastriot" OR "John Kastrioti" OR "John Kastriota" -"Gjon Kastrioti" -llc -Wikipedia

1950-1980 21 hits

1980-2000 16 hits

2000-2010 11 hits

2010-present 4 hits

"Gjon Kastrioti" -"John Castriot" -"John Castrioti" -"John Castriota" -"John Kastriot" -"John Kastrioti" -"John Kastriota" -llc -Wikipedia

1950-1980 6 hits, of which 2 not in English

1980-2000 14 hits, of which 4 not in English

2000-2010 18 hits

2010-present 4 hits

This can, of course, be interpreted in many ways, but my conclusion would be this: "John" has been the clearly dominant form of the name in English language sources at least up to 2000. From then, the picture is more mixed, but it is to early to conclude that "Gjon" has "taken over"; I would wait at least 10 years to make that conclusion. But I can clearly live with both conclusions. --T*U (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

As I said in the previous discussion, not all search hits count. For example, this Albanian author(ess) (with the Greek surname "Papathimiu", i.e. "the son/daughter of Father (Eu)Thymios") is openly showing that she writes from the "our-national-hero" POV, in an obscure Catalan site/magazine of geography, on a subject that is irrelevant to 15th century. She works at the Dept of Geography at Tirana "The demographic and economic development of Albania during and after the decline of Communist regime (1945-2010)": "The Prince Gjon Kastrioti was the father of our national hero Gjergj Kastrioti called Skënderbeu.. If, say, 1.000 Albanians of various disciplines decide to promote "Gjon", they can send 3000 articles on geography, chemistry, traditional medicin etc, to magazines from Chile to Uzbekistan, sprinkling en passant some "Gjon" in every article, just to manipulate WP.--Skylax30 (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Quite interesting research dear T*U, but may I aske why you include sources since BoT(Beginning of Time) and not the latest literature? cant really understand it. It seems that is not taking into consideration the advances in reseach/science being achieved. Just imagine some dif. questions: If we were to determine whether moon is made out of cheese, would we examine medieval literature as well and compare it with more modern claims and find out who has moe hits? Or if we were to determine whether homosexuality is a disease, should we count google hits from BoT and compare them with modern literature? Your method of research seems biased in favor of outdated material. Moreover, you have claimed that "there is no guarantee that all the hits are reliable sources, but that goes for both sides." which is true, but not both sides contribute the equal amount of non reliable sources, as it make sense that the bigger pool can provide more no reliable sources. I wouldn't want to diminish your valuable contribution to the ongoing debate, it 's just that I think there are some serious drawbacks in your conclusions. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Τζερόνυμο: I am sorry, but I do not understand your comments. My search start in 1950, and I think BoT was before that. My search ends at present, and I do not know how to search for future books and scientific papers. --T*U (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

TU-nor let me rephrase. I am not suggesting to look into a crystal ball, I am just saying that we should take into consideration considerations contemporary literature, that is the last 10 or 20 years. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

... excluding the made-in-Albania nationalistic articles, Τζερόνυμο. Btw, thanks for following me everywhere. I'm flattered. (Don't take offense. In your talk page you advertize that you are against nationalism. Aren't you?).--Skylax30 (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Why should we exclude made-in-Albania articles? Should we exclude made-in-Grece nationalistic articles as well? I am not following you (compare our contributions) but it 's ok to feel good even if there is nothing there. Ah! And I don't advertise anything. I am pro-knowledge. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

As has been adequately demonstrated Gjon is not a neologism, it is the authentic native Albanian name for the man. We all seem to agree that the "John" variants dominate earlier works while the recent trend has been to favor "Gjon". This matches the wider trend of increased preference for native terms in academia, and the reconciliation of historians from across the Iron Curtain after the fall of communism in Albania. It makes little sense to change our page name when the trend in the literature points the other way. I do agree with TU-nor that the results are not conclusive enough to show that Gjon has "taken" over but they certainly do not in themselves support moving the page, while the other argument ("neologism") is just false.Calthinus (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit conflict: Τζερόνυμο: I had not intended to answer you more in detail, but since you continue to misrepresent my claims, I feel I have to. You claimed first that I include sources since BoT(Beginning of Time) and not the latest literature, both of which are factually wrong. Your comment would we examine medieval literature as well ... and compare them with modern literature is close to being hostile. And then Your method of research seems biased in favor of outdated material. My "method of research" has faithfully examined every Scholar hit and Books hit from 1950 till today. Where is the bias? And to your very last comment: I have considered the last 10 or 20 years, as you will see if you read my post. Could you now stop your misrepresentation of my comments and keep to the case in question. --T*U (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User:TU-nor, please accept my sincere apologies. I had no intention to offend you and I am really sorry you feel that way. It 's clear that you didn't start counting since the BoT. It is clear that you did a fine and time-consuming job presenting google hits. Your argumentation is really sound. It is just a minor objection I really have, conserning the time window you are using. The bias is located in appreciating that the 1950's hits are as significant as the 2010's hits. It 's not a big deal though. Cheers. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

At least one of these current sources using "John Castriot" is in fact not current, but a reprint. This one, with only one mention, is a reprint of classical English literature which refers to him as the "king of Epirus" [[40]].Calthinus (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose because the name Gjon is not a "neologism" but a historically widespread Albanian name, even among Arvanite communities. This debate is verging closely to denying Gjon was an Albanian. Vargmali (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

References

What he is called in Albanian is hardly the point. --T*U (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what I am saying TU-nor. A central argument of the moveistsis that the Albanian name is inauthentic and a 'neologism' or even more bizarrely, that it is "translated" from the "correct" Slavic name Jovan. They have no reliable sources backing this up and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. The reason for arguing such a thing is the belief, also unsupported that Gjon Kastrioti was a Slav, because Albanians "didn't exist". These tendencies are all citable given the edit histories of a certain user. The only mystery to me is what a respectible editor like you are doing associating with this campaign. Vargmali (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support. The above comments convinced me that the using the English form of his name is the most neutral approach and it can be verified. Furthermore, this approach is in line with our practice in connection with hundreds or thousands of other medieval proper names, including most monarchs.Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it's best to use the original name of the subject.--Liridon (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose I never heard the english name John Castriot. This historical figure is known by its real name, Gjon Kastrioti, and this should be respected here in the Wikipedia. It is weird practice to try and anglicise the names of figures like that just because the Google charts show that the english word may call historical figures by their english name (if it exists). No matter which name is popular on Google charts, a person's name should stay true. I really can't stand the idea that either modern figures like the Italian president Sergio Mattarella could be renamed into George Mattarella or some english equivalent, if one exists, and even historic figuress like the Greek captain Pavlos Melas could be renamed into Paul Melas whenever and in the case his english name appears and/or becomes popular on Google charts someday. I couldn't mind if world-famous figures who originated from that region and were influential to the world, i.e. the Byzantine emperors Justinian and John, are called by their English names instead of their real names, because it is obvious that their fame and notability was of global scale, but I do mind when the same practice is extended even to the local notables. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Note: I suppose arguments like "original name" and "real name", from users who "never heared the english name", have their meanings, too.--Skylax30 (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• It seems to me that he was 'John Castriot' until about 1951 when he became known as Gjon Kastrioti. The two names are now more or less equally used. But Gjon Kastrioti is strongly considered to correct by Albanians, and John Castriot considered to be more historical by others. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Non-consensus move

A user with no contributions to this page recently moved it to "John of Castriot", falsely claiming this is how he is referred to in English. This is demonstrably not only false, but patently absurd. See Google Scholar: [[41]]. Admin help in reverting this is requested.--Calthinus (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done controversial page move reverted as it was undiscussed, In future, feel free to make a request at WP:RMT to revert undiscussed page moves. cheers. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The Albanian POV again

The LEAD says that John Kastrioti was "Albanian", on two sources. The one is dated 1978 and the other 1899 (!). No page is indicated on the later. Today I added two other sources, claiming that the man was Greek. The one is dated 2017 Jayoung Che, "The Socio-political Meanings of the Conflict between the Muslims and the Christians around the Western Balkan in the 15th Century", Athens Journal of History, Vol. 3, Issue 4, October 2017, p. 300 and the other 1968 Demus John, "Conferences and studies on Skanderbeg : in Albania", Balkan Studies Vol 9, No 2 (1968), p. 493. The "patrol" deleted this info and both sources, commending only on the one that is "outdated". Does anyone else see the Albanian national POV here? And one more question: If we accept a 1899 source claiming (if it will be veryfied) that he was Albanian, why not some more sources of the same period claiming that he was Serbian? Thanks.--Skylax30 (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Read WP:Fringe, there are the answers of your questions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, actually the one source after the "Albanian" claim, in Russian language, doesn't say that he was Albanian. At least not in the quoted phrase. The other, of 1899, i will check. The two users who guard the Albanian national myths in WP are edit warring (and will be reported) and erase the other views as "fringe". Still they are invited here to explain their edits.--Skylax30 (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I am so deeply sorry that an obviously Albanian historical figure being called Albanian has upset you so deeply. Perhaps you would like to talk about your feelings. If you would like to do so, a safe space might be found [over there].--Calthinus (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Skylax is at it again with his WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS edits. Che is recycling Greek POV Savvidis (1991) and Demus from 1968. I know this means a lot to you @Skylax in your editing to prove that everyone was or is "Greek" and 'they just don't know it yet', but get over it. Schmitt did the most in depth analysis to date on Skanderbeg outside any axe to grind or to promote nationalism.Resnjari (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

If he was an "obviously albanian figure", add the relevant sources. For the moment I see none. If for Schmitt was "obviously Albanian", add it in the footnotes. At the same time, all views must be present in the article. Tag "cn" is not supposed to be erased. Personal attacks and threats noted. Expected any way, when there are no other valid arguments.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the CN tag, as there is enough material in the main body of the article, of Kastriti being Albanian nobleman. See titles section.Cinadon36 (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Gjon Castrioti did not die in mount hilindar

One book says that gjon did not die as johachim but was poisoned by ottoman sultans https://books.google.com/books?id=pgf6GWJxuZgC&pg=PA76&dq=however,+shows+that+he+was+poisoned+albania&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi78MreuvrhAhVphq0KHcREDe0Q6AEIJjAA Gjondeda 13:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Kosovo 1389

Was he there? Two books say he was there !!.. https://books.google.com/books?id=NYsMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=john+kastrioti+kosovo+battle&source=bl&ots=yfXxuDaWNi&sig=ACfU3U0Pdi-kx1lR1AzM3oMxfuTtXleHug&hl=com&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=john%20kastrioti%20kosovo%20battle&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=bsyCCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=john+kastrioti+kosovo+battle&source=bl&ots=hfx-6llyfV&sig=ACfU3U0uWl-GpxUFmBRNg1HgrqIw9rC7PQ&hl=com&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=john%20kastrioti%20kosovo%20battle&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hioiim (talk • contribs) 10:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Bibliography

Like many other articles, which have been extensively edited by the same group of banned editors and socks most of the article's content is an unintelligible mess of bad use of bibliography and an even worse understanding of basic historiography. The cleanup will take about a week or so.--Maleschreiber (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• I will explain various points for the curious reader who visits the talkpage. In this edit, I have removed the talking point that Some of Gjon's subordinates held the title of kephale (..) and some had the position of čelnik The editor(s) wrote that piece misunderstood the fact that these are different descriptions in medieval correspondence in relation to the different recipients and the corresponding titles in their language. It doesn't mean that there different people to whom others referred to as cephale/čelnik/castellan. It's a common practice throughout medieval correspondence which because of a lack of basic understanding was transferred in this manner on wikipedia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

For my edits

Gjon Kastrioti did not die in Hilandar on May 2 or 9, 1437, because he was alive on May 28 or March 28, 1438, see Jireček, Konstantin, Geschichte der Serben, Vol.: 2,1, 1371 - 1537, Gotha, 1918, p. 183: "Gjon Kastriot was still alive in March 1438: Ljubić 9, 214 and Jorga 3, 33. Two Serbian notes, however, give the date of death as Thursday, May 2 or 9, 1437 (6945): Stojanović, Zapisi 1, no. 270-271." He died some were in before July 7, 1439 Ungjited (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Ljubić Listine, 9, has it as: "XXVIII, mai 1438", while Jorga Notes, 3, has it as: "28 mars 1438". Probably the correct one is Jorga's, since he publishes the actual source. Ungjited (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)