Talk:Gjon Kastrioti/Archive 1

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
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:. 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
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 . 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 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 : John:
 * width="50%" align="" valign="" style="border:0"|
 * "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
 * width="50%" align="" valign="" style="border:0"|
 * "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. --Z oupan 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".--Z oupan 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.--Z oupan 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:

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)


 * Please don't violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY.
 * Below are 21st century results 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, John Van Antwerp Fine ,...). 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". This form is also supported by Nelo Drizari and Arshi Pipa . --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 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:
 * 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)