Talk:Ghica family

Untitled section

Isn't it however understood in the sources that whether they were Aromanians or not, they anyway were Vlachs in its oldest and widest meaning? ObRoy 00:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not known whether they were anything but Albanian - it is believed that they were, but not known for sure. For the rest,it seems to be backwards: whatever they originally were, many of their descendants chose to be Romanian. Dahn 00:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh so they were Vlachs as well? In any case, you do realise that "Ghikas" is the commonest version of the name in English. Ghica can refer to countless other people, but its Hellenized form refers to the Phanariote family. How come this article doesn't say that the family was Hellenized in order to became boyards? Nevermind, we all know the answer to that. Miskin 13:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So according to some people's logic, every person who is the ancestor of the Ghikas, in Greece, Romania and Albania, will be a member of a "Romanian family". Why not the other way around? The Ghikas was a Hellenized family of Albanian origin, there are many Ghikas in Greece and Ghica in Albania, I don't see how we can label as "Romanians" now. At least find a source for it, that's the minimum effort for making edits. Miskin 13:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Origins

The section titled "Origins" is a total propagandistic POV: one source only is sistematically used to deny the general consensus of the historians about the Albanian origins of the family and claim that it was of Romanian ethnicity, and this source isn't even written in English but.. in Romanian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.203.162 (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A source is still a source, no matter the language. SISPCM (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

One source is one source and you can't fill a section of POV statements from a Romanian article which is not even written in English. There is not a lot of reliable material in the section named "Origins".. How can such a sentence be reliable, in instance: "Modern Romanian historiography has expressed vexation at the appropriation, undertaken by Albanian historiography (and by the unscientific Western scholarly works relying on faulty and superficial theories), of not only the Romanian feminist activist and writer Elena Ghica, but also of the whole Ghica family", when I show a modern Romanian academic source written by Romanian scholars and published by the Cluj University Press stating so: "Grigore IV Ghica, a member of a family of Albanian descent and Greek culture" (Maria Crăciun, Ovidiu Ghitta, Ethnicity and religion in Central and Eastern Europe, Cluj University Press, 1995, p. 202)?

A large part of the claims in that section denying the Albanian origins of the family is based on one source quoted several times. Basing a whole section on personal ideas and the original theory of one scholar is not a reliable attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.183.206 (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess the fact that Vasile Lupu was Albanian is not enough to prove that Gjika's were also Albanian by origin. Or are you going to change the history of the Lupu's as well? just a visitor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.67.215 (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Albanian spelling

Why the Albanian spelling of the name ("Gjika") has been removed? Senshi 14:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Is anybody with this name automatically considered to belong to this family?--Mycomp (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't remove the Albanian family name. Mondiad (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Gjika and in these days, is Albanian family because at that time there were no slave in macedonia especially in Veles is known today that belonged shqiperis.Albania the only country that has not corrupted history as the Balkan states.

1. REDIRECT [[3 aprill from Tirana

]]

Gjika is an Albanian name you shovinistic assholes!! we're tired of this shit..

Turks from Cyprus?

Romanian author Liviu Bordas referenced and cited as "Turks from Cyprus". Köprülü were from Berat, Albania, not from Cyprus. Mondiad (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Strange neutrality

It is obviously that this article isn't neutral.Firstly a large part of the claims in that section denying the Albanian origins of the family is based on one source quoted several times.And this source is a magazine,a Romanian/Aromanian magazine.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality?

I have reverted the changes to the first sentences of "Origins", but keeping the new sources and also keeping the information about the family's website. 1) There is no reason to delete the first sentence "The family's origins are not clear...", which is a fair summary of the whole long "Origins" section. 2) Contrasting "Scholars say" with "Some Romanian sources claim" is not neutral. The verbs "say" and "claim" create an indication of difference in credibility which is not supported by the sources. Also, given the presentation in the rest of the "Origins" section, there is no foundation for specifying "Romanian". --T*U (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@TU-nor: If you don't give me some non-Romanian sources that say Ghica were Aromanians my edits will be readded.There is no place for romanian pseudohistory.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(I indented your message.) That is not how Wikipedia works per WP:BRD. You need to create a consensus for your changes. Removing a perfectly innocent sentence about there not being a consensus and inserting loaded language in order to discredt a source is not the way to make this article better. --T*U (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@TU-nor:In fact the Romanian pseudo-history isn't the way to make this article better.You have to give me some non-Romanian sources that say Ghica were Aromanians or my edits will be readded.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rolandi+: I have reverted the edits of the now indef-blocked editor back to your last version. That does not mean that I accept your version, but I am giving you the chance to self revert.

Wikipedia is based on consensus, not confrontation. One of the basic methods of improving articles is the WP:BRD cycle. In short, if you try to make a bold change to an article, and this is reverted, you are supposed to discuss in the talk page and try to create consensus before changing the article. In this article, you have been reverted several times by different editors, but still you have repeatedly inserted your preferred version without trying to discuss the changes. Your edit summaries have said "talk page", but you have not given any other reason on the talk page than "if you do not do so-and-so, the edits will be readded". That is not discussion, that is edit war, and as I said: That is not how Wikipedia works.

When your proposed topic ban was disussed, you said several times: "If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever." Now you have the chance to prove that you meant it. I suggest that you self revert back to the version of 16 July (or if you prefer, the version of 12 Sep 12:05) and then present your suggested changes in the talk page. (If you need help to reinstate a former version, just tell me.)

For the record: I am willing to discuss your suggestions with an open mind, provided you present them in a proper way, not through edit war, but through discussion. --T*U (talk) 06:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@TU-nor: I see that an unregistred user has made some edits.As I said to you scholars say that Ghica were of Albanian origin.The fact that a Romanian nationalist writer claims an Aromanian origin doesn't mean there isn't a consensus between scholars about family's Albanian origin.Find me some non-Romanian sources supporting my version will stay.Pseudo-history isn't needed here.Rolandi+ (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@TU-nor: If you don't give me some non-Romanian sources supporting Bordas my version will be readded.Rolandi+ (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you read what I have written above: That is not how Wikipedia works. I am willing to discuss your suggestions with an open mind, provided you present them in a proper way as suggestions in the talk page. If you insist of edit warring your version back, you may have to take the consequences of your earlier declarations. --T*U (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Do you know what Fringe theory is?If can't find other sources supporting your claim my version will be readded.The fact that Bordas claims aromanian origin doesn't mean that there isn't consensus between scholars (mainstream scholarship).Rolandi+ (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you know what edit war is? Unless you will discuss properly in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, I have nothing more to add. --T*U (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Your problem is not "my edit war".The Albanian origin is "suggested" while the aromanian one is "argued".If you think this ridiculous version will stay you are wrong.The Aromanian origin is supported only by a nationalist source.Why don't you find some other sources about it?The Albanian origin is well supported and the most important thing is that the family says thay are albanians.So the part that says "the origin is not clear" can't stay.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the problem was your edit war. I see that you now have at least started to use some arguments instead of the "it will be readded" edit war attitude. Thank you for that. I will be back soon with some proposals. --T*U (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@TU-nor: If you don't come with some proposals after some days my edits will be readded.So please think about your proposals as soon as possible.I know,it's hard to support fringe theories about the "Aromanian origin".Rolandi+ (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I see that you are back to threats of edit war again. I also see that you go for the same "technique" in other articles, ignoring Wikipedia guidelines. I should probably be doing something better than trying (in vain, so far) to teach you how Wikipedia works. I will, however, follow up my promise. I will present my proposals in a separate subsection below. And just for the record: I do not support the theory of Aromanian origin. Nor do I support any other theory. I try to support Wikipedia. --T*U (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggested changes to the Origin section

I will take the version from 16 July as the basis, since that version had been fairly stable for several years. I will discuss the proposed changes step by step:

1) "The family's origins are not clear and there isn't yet a consensus among scholars." Ronaldi+ suggests to remove this sentence, saying "The Albanian origin is well supported and the most important thing is that the family says thay are albanians.So the part that says "the origin is not clear" can't stay." As I see it, this sentence is a short summary of the whole "Origin" section, giving a fair introduction to the presentation of the different theories. On the other hand, I do not see it as crucial for the presentation. For the sake of consensus I can be wiling to accept that this sentence is removed.

2) "An Albanian has long been suggested," Rolandi+ suggests "Scholars say that Ghica family is of Albanian origin.". Rolandi+ argues that "The Albanian origin is "suggested" while the aromanian one is "argued".", which is a valid argument. Instead of "suggested" it could say "given" or "presented", but in this context I will suggest "claimed", since there are other claims. I also see the point of mentioning scholars, but "Scholars say" sounds too much like a school child's essay. My suggestion would be "An Albanian origin has long been claimed by scholars,", but I am quite willing to discuss further which verb to use. In my opinion claimed by scholars moves the balance towards the Albanian theory without rejecting other possibilities.

3) "while others argue for an Aromanian origin." Rolandi+ suggests "Some Romanian sources claim that the family is of Aromanian origin." The arguments for this is that the theory about a possible Aromanian origin is "Romanian pseudo-history" by "a Romanian nationalist writer" and "fringe theories". There is, however, nothing to show that this theory has been refuted, nor is there anything to substanciate that it is pseudo-history or fringe. The nationality of Bordaș is irrelevant unless there is something to show that his claim is biased by his nationality. The personal opinion of Rolandi+ is not a valid argument. If it would help creating a consensus, the sentence might be changed to something like "while an Aromanian origin also has been suggested.", but given the rest of the "Origin" section, which mostly is paraphrasing Bordaș's argumentation, "argue for" seems to me to be more precise.

4) Rolandi+ suggests to add "However the website of the family say that Ghica are of Albanian origin." I agree that the point of view of the familiy is a relevant and should be added. Starting the sentence with "however" just after the mention of the competing theory looks llke an attempt to discredit the alternative theory. As the "Origin" section now stands, this placement also breaks the logic of the presentation, since the next sentence starts with "Thus...". "The logical and neutral way to present it, is to mention it together with other arguments for the Albanian origin theory. This is taken care of by adding ", also supported by the website of the family" or similar after the presentation of the Albanian origin theory. The wording can, of course, be discussed.

5) Regarding the rest of the "Origin" section, it will need some reworking. As it stands now, it is mainly a paraphrase of the arguments for an Aromanian origin. It is fairly well written and coherent, but too much dependent on one source,and perhaps to much of an essay. It would need a more balanced presentation, also using sources supporting the Albanian origin theory. This would probably have to be a community co-operation between editors covering the several different languages used in the existant sources. My contribution would be to propose a trimming of the essayistic start to "On the one hand, a legend transmitted by the Moldavian chronicler Ion Neculce speaks about ...". The rest I will leave to others. --T*U (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Roland. The whole Origins section follows the same reference by Romanian Liviu Bordas. He is references like 7 times. Check it. Apparently being a nationalist Romanian (that's nothing wrong with that) he can't stand the fact that the Ghicas are of Albanian origin. And he is over-referenced.

The section looks more like a personal research paper or an essay from Bordas, a point of view of a certain unique author, rather than an article. So much rage inside Bordas' sentences, he really can't stand it. And as always this is supported by a stream of Greek "neutral" authors or wikipedians.

Most of all, the "Origins" section talks about their ethnic origins, not any national conscience or affiliation which beside Elena Gjika or Prince Albert points towards Romanianism. So, they were of Albanian origin? Ok, move on. There is so much to write about this family rather than argue on the Albanian origin which is disputed only by Bordas and some other Romanian nationalists.

Mondiad (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Mondiad, part of your comment about Liviu Bordas violates WP:BLP. I suggest you to retract that part. Implying that authors who are Greeks are not neutral and attributing nationalism to living people is very disruptive. Please don't continue with this kind of nationalistic disruptions in future. Your speculations about Romanain nationalist POV does not make much sense. Whether Ghica are originally Romanians, Albanians or Aromanians does not matter to that view because that point of view and contemporary scholars believe that all of them share the same origin from Romania. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Really? Why don't you read the Bordas article first who attacks the "western scholars" and then talk here about WP:BLP. Seriously, with all the respect for you, this time you sound very scholastic and opportunistic "...'is very disruptive. Please don't continue with this kind of nationalistic disruptions in future. Your speculations about Romanain nationalist POV does not make much sense....". This is a talk page, what is more disruptive is threatening people and suspending their accounts like has became common. Won't help you much in credit either. Everywhere where there is a discussion related to Albania/Albanians, the Greek wikipedians jump on the opposite side no matter what. Looks like they take more care of the Albania related articles than the Greek ones. Of course. This is what I meant about the non-fair wiki alliances that are quite common. It is strange no Wiki-Admins really take a look at this, and they always neglect even when notified. Don't pretend you don't know, and please don't start again with WP:THIS and WP:THAT.

You want to go though Bordas text first and see the wrath (and almost contempt) he has versus authors who claim Ghicas as Albanians? Doesn't it bother you that the Origin section is widely based on a single source, and that is Bordas? If you want Wikipedia a better place, why don't you start with this first?

I have Albanian sources who claim that Karadjordjevic family was indeed Albanian, should we base all the Origin of Karadjordjevic on that?

Mondiad (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages" WP:BLPTALK further explains: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." Although you clarified that you don't think there is anything wrong with being nationalist, I think that your statement violates WP:BLP and should be removed. To make matters worse, your violation of BLP does not make any sense. True Romanian nationalists couldn't care less if Ghica were Albanians or Aromanians or Romanians, because for them and for many contemporary scholars all of them are originally from Romania. I think I clearly explained my position and don't have anything to add to it. Whether you are going to follow WP:BLP or not is your choice. Based on your ethnicity based accusations against other wikipedia editors which you certainly know are violation of WP:NPA, I am not optimistic.
• Re Karađorđe: I think there are also many non-Albanian sources that ancestors of Karađorđe came to Montenegro from Albania. Many Slav families had to flee from Albania to Montenegro or Italy. Including Castrioti family. As far as I am concerned, you are more than welcome to present all views about origin of Skanderbeg and Karađorđe. Do you need my assistance?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghica family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612024741/http://www.christopherlong.co.uk/gen/mavrogordatogen/fg12_226.html to http://www.christopherlong.co.uk/gen/mavrogordatogen/fg12_226.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Dates

I know nothing of how to correct them, but the dating of the early princes seems off. In particular, Gheorghe is given multiple tenures as prince of both Wallachia and Moldavia, which is of course possible, but nearly a century apart in the case of Moldavia [1650s and 1730s-40s]. Random noter (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)