Jump to content

Talk:Ali Pasha of Ioannina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unexplained removals

[edit]

For an unexplained reasons Dakin's famous quote on Ali Pasha, was either falsified or completely removed. Although this part is already cited (by Fleming's work) it might be a good idea to provide the url her too [[1]].Alexikoua (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's childish in this case is that the falsified quote found a place in the lead of the article, without an appropriate reference.Alexikoua (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph is a mess

[edit]

The lead paragraph has all kinds of things wrong with it. Ali's birth date seems in fact to be unknown; at least, the sources I've looked at give widely different dates, and there should at least be a question mark after any birth date (unless some historian I haven't read has established a generally accepted birth date for him.) The rest of the information in the lead is mostly unsourced. Of the two sources given, one only mentions Ali briefly as being referred in a poem; the other is in Turkish, which I can't read, but running it through Google Translate seems to indicate that it just verifies he was an Ottoman official and had three sons. Also, the description of him as an Albanian Muslim is inaccurate: several respectable sources record his ancestry as mixed Turkish/Albanian/Other -- one source says he spoke Albanian and Greek well but Turkish poorly -- and several sources also record that one of his remarkable characteristics was that he presented himself as Moslem or Christian depending on which one happened to be more advantageous politically at the time. The whole thing needs to be redone and verified by citations. Littlewindow (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling?

[edit]

It is seems to me that in current times the spelling of the city that is the capital of Epirus is "Ioannina" and the older spellings such as Janina and Yannina have fallen into disfavor by modern scholars. "Ioannina" most closely resembles it's Greek spelling. All studies of Romaniote Jewry, which Ioannina was the epicenter of, use this spelling. 50.191.30.166 (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)buddmar[reply]

Having read numerous books on modern Greece, I agree that Ioannina seems to be the standard spelling in English-language books for the past several decades at least. Littlewindow (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Pasha as Sufi

[edit]

I've deleted the reference to Ali Pasha as a Sufi since it is un-sourced. I have no particular ax to grind in doing this: for all I know he may well have been a Sufi. But it should should not be so stated in the article unless verified by a reliable source. The reference at the end of the paragraph is to an on line document that is a reliable source but nowhere that I could find mentions Ali as a Sufi. Incidentally, the WP article on Bektashi Order also says that Ali was a Sufi, but it seems unsourced there too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlewindow (talk • contribs) 23:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I will add the sources.Mondiad (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters

H.T.Norris, Popular Sufism in Eastern Europe: Sufi Brotherhoods and the Dialogue with Christianity and 'Heterodoxy' (Routledge Sufi), [2], p.79, ``...and the tomb of Ali himself. Its headstone was capped by the crown (taj) of the Bektashi order.``.
Robert Elsie, Historical Dictionary of Albania, [3], p.40, ``Most of the Southern Albania and Epirus converted to Bektashism, initially under the influence of Ali Pasha Tepelena, "the Lion of Janina", who was himself a follower of the order``.
Miranda Vickers, The Albanians: A Modern History, [4], p.22, ``Around that time, Ali was converted to Bektashism by Baba Shemin of Kruja...``.
Vassilis Nitsiakos, On the Border: Transborder Mobility, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries along the Albanian-Greek Frontier (Balkan Border Crossings- Contributions to Balkan Ethnography), [5], p.216, ``Bektashism was widespread during the reign of Ali Pasha, a Bektashi himself,...``.
Gerlachlus Duijzings, Religion and the Politics of Identity in Kosovo, [6], p.82, ``The most illustrious among them was Ali Pasha (1740-1822), who exploited the organisation and religious doctrine...``.
Stavro Skendi, Balkan Cultural Studies, [7], p.161, ``The great expandion of Bektashism in southern Albania took place during the time of Ali Pasha Tepelena, who is believed to have been a Bektashi himself``.

Partial supporters

Natalie Clayer, The myth of Ali Pasha and Bektashis, [8], p.130, ``Was Ali Pasha himself initiated to the Bektashiyye? Besides the fact that he seemed to have been closer to the Sadiyye, the Halvetiyye or even the Nakshibendiyye (the tekke of Parga was Nakshibendi, as well as a well-kbown tekke of Ioannina),...``. (The author tries to deconstruct the Ali Pasha - Bektashi relation, but at least accepts that he was closer to other Sufi orders).

Tertiary source

[edit]

There is a claim by Robert Elsie according to which Ali Pasha was of Turkish origin. The source is the dictionary of The Highland Lute (Lahuta e malcís): the Albanian national epic but tertiary sources aren't allowed here.NobleFrog (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this a tertiary? I won't have a problem to remove this, but as I know there are additional sources that confirm this. By the way, as the article states this connection is problematic. However it needs to be part of the article since mainstream bibliography mentions it.Alexikoua (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which "additional sources" confirm this? You really like the idea of marking Ali Pasha as Turk or Turk-Albanians, don't you? Mondiad (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of a decent explanation. Childish arguments are something you need to avoid. You asked for an additional source and there is already the paper of Ahmet Uzun in the article.Alexikoua (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the tertiary source (Elsie) isn't needed. We have Uzun who says there have been claims of an Turkish origin.NobleFrog (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as you explain why this work is a tertiary. If you are right the we need to proceed to the removal Elsie's works in other wiki-articles too ("Albanian dictionary" etc).Alexikoua (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is taken from the dictionary of a book. A dictionary is a tertiary source. In addition Elsie doesn't explain anything about it, where he found that information etc. You need a better source.NobleFrog (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It don't see any bibliography too there. So I have to agree that this isn't the best work we can have in wikipedia. I'll remove this part.Alexikoua (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Skiotis offers one of the most detailed account about Ali's origin [[9]], which agrees with Uzun. In fact the Anatolian origin is claimed by a Turkish historian and the Historia e Sqiperise of 1959. To be more detailed they both claim that a Dervish monk from Kutahia was his ancestor. Skiotis rejects this claim as western accounts consider him Albanian.Alexikoua (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am just reading Skiotis, looks like a good work. Let's stick to him in this case. Mondiad (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Skiotis article seems to me of fundamental importance, and many of the facts it reports ought to be incorporated into the WP article, properly referenced. Littlewindow (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous title

[edit]

I see some discussions were held, but they resulted in no clear consensus. The notion that one Ali Pasha is more important than the others is quite tenuous AFAICT, because the list of people called Ali Pasha is packed with exceedingly notable people.

I tried to corroborate the claim of primary topic but failed - I did a Google Books search for the phrase, and found numerous references both to this one and to Mohammed Ali Pasha and others right there on the first page of results. I looked for it in Britannica, and actually found no references to this one on the first page, but numerous references to the others - to an older one from the Battle of Lepanto and to the Egypt-related people. A Google Scholar search for the term gives just 2 historical references among the first 10, and neither are to this one. Only the sixth historical reference is to this one, and the rest is mostly about Egypt.

So, absent an actual fact-based consensus that this particular Ali Pasha is the primary topic for the term, I see no compelling reason to keep the status quo. Instead, the term should be disambiguated. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went through a lot of the incoming links and found that numerous terms commonly used as natural disambiguation didn't even have incoming redirects. For example:
  • "Ali Pasha of Janina" 1822 gets ~579 gbooks hits - in comparison, the search for "Ali Pasha" Janina 1822 gets ~1230 gbooks hits
  • "Ali Pasha of Ioannina" 1822 gets ~205 gbooks hits - in comparison, the search for "Ali Pasha" Ioannina 1822 gets ~739 gbooks hits
  • "Ali Pasha of Jannina" 1822 gets ~182 gbooks hits - in comparison, the search for "Ali Pasha" Jannina 1822 gets ~1880 gbooks hits
  • "Ali Pasha of Yanina" 1822 gets ~158 gbooks hits - in comparison, the search for "Ali Pasha" Yanina 1822 gets ~557 gbooks hits
  • "Ali Pasha of Joannina" 1822 gets ~123 gbooks hits - in comparison, the search for "Ali Pasha" Joannina 1822 gets ~1070 gbooks hits
  • "Ali Pasha of Yannina" 1822 gets ~63 gbooks hits - in comparison, the search for "Ali Pasha" Yannina 1822 gets ~1600 gbooks hits
For reference also:
  • "Ali Pasha" 1822 gets ~3,190 gbooks hits
  • "Ali Pasha" Tepelena 1822 gets ~203 gbooks hits
  • "Ali Pasha" Tepelene 1822 gets ~304 gbooks hits
Note that these are just the heading estimates. I didn't bother to click through each result set, which usually results in a substantial reduction of big numbers. (For the record, I clicked through the largest result set and it was cut off at the 24th page, so at ~240)
The gbooks search results for the raw term seem to are not limited to English, and appear to contain several books from the Count of Monte Cristo series, which probably helps them maintain the raw ~1500 advantage over the raw sum of all disambiguated references. Nevertheless I've tried to click through to see how a top dozen relevant results refer to the person, and found they more often add a suffix than not. In general, it seems to me that there's no evidence that historical texts, both on Wikipedia and in the gbooks search results, use the raw term in the volume that would be required for us to avoid using a suffixed title.
In addition, the link from the humongous Greek War of Independence template caused a large of internal links to the current title, without those articles actually discussing this topic. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went through all the internal links (phew). Most of them were in context. This is the most commonly referenced Ali Pasha, but not by a lot, and in turn a lot of it is because we have a veritable cornucopia of articles about Greek and Albanian villages and people, a long tail of sorts.
So I moved the article. I did see the log of a previous attempt at a move in July 2014 reverted for being too bold. I hope my extensive work and analysis will be a sufficient indicator how this move wasn't really bold but merely a normalization with real-world status quo. (Discuss!) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ali Pasha of Ioannina. 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:

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) 00:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 removal of well cited text inserted in 2012

[edit]

Resnjari edit warred diff and diff to remove well cited text inserted in 2012 diff.

Having in mind that this article have 95 watchers and had almost 300.000 viewers since then while the quoted text has 43 GB search hits, I believe it is necessary to reach consensus on the talkpage of this article before removal of that text.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antidiskriminator, nope no edit war. First change was made and then i did not agree with the second and here i am in the talkpage, as per WP:BRD. I am aware of watchers. You should be aware of policy before throwing around "edit war" claims.Resnjari (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies but to remove content from one article without consensus, solely on the grounds that something similar was agreed on the talk page of a certain WP:OTHER article which is irrelevant to this one, is not a valid argument. Each article has its own consensus and features its own talk page and what applies to one article does not necessarily apply like that to the other pages - unless doing so is a rationale or policy. The content as User:Antidiskriminator has pointed out, existed since 2012 here, and it should not be removed just because the X or Y consensus has been reached on Kolokotronis (if it has). --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 13:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nah i didn't agree to the removal of text from another article. No consensus was achieved. Nor is the reason sufficient.Resnjari (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now I am even more confused. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 14:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it. You confirmed something for me regarding the other matter. Thanks.Resnjari (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Young girls from Ioannina

[edit]

The article tells a story very different from that in The Balkan wars (2002) by André Gerolymatos, p. 79-81. Gerolymatos states that Euphorsyne and their female friends were actually adulter. "The outraged husbands of these new hetairai and the wives of their Muslim lovers appealed to Ali Pasha for justice", and "no one spoke out on behalf of the women", so he could not but order the killing. Is the article assuming the folk tradition as for history? As one of the versions must be wrong, Gerolymatos' should be included also.Joan Rocaguinard (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 April 2023

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 23:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This autonomous Albanian Ottoman ruler is variously known as Ali Pasha of Ioannina, Ali Pasha of Janina (or of Yanina), Ali Pasha of Tepelenë and others. Per WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). In this case those sources happen to be books, journals and website articles written by qualified historians. In the WP:RS, Ali Pasha is almost invariably used. Here is only a tiny sampling of the notable works that use the Ali Pasha rather than Ali Pasha of Ioannina/Janina/Yanina/Tepelenë etc.

  • Holland, Henry, Travels in the Ionian Isles, Albania, Thessaly, Macedonia, Etc. During the Years 1812 and 1913 (1815)
  • Manzour, Ibrahim, Memoirs on Greece and Albania during the government of Ali Pasha (1827)
  • Dumas, Alexandre, Ali Pacha: Celebrated Crimes (1840)
  • Baggally, John Wortley, Ali Pasha and Great Britain (1938)
  • Christowe, Stoyan, The Lion of Yanina: A Narrative Based on the Life of Ali Pasha, Despot of Epirus (1941)
  • Plomer, William, Ali Pasha: The Diamond of Jannina (1970)
  • Fleming, Katherine Elizabeth, The Muslim Bonaparte: Diplomacy and Orientalism in Ali Pasha's Greece (1999)
  • Stavros Stavrianosh, Leften, The Balkans Since 1453 (2000)

Another point is that the current Ali Pasha disambiguation contains Turkish Ottoman viziers, who were just minor Ottoman statesmen and aren't very notable. A notable "Ali Pasha" is Muhammad Ali Pasha, though he is never only referred to only as "Ali Pasha" in reliable sources. Also, in the Turkish language, the "sh" is not used, rather "ş" is used and I propose that "Ali Paşa" can be a disambiguation, while "Ali Pasha" shouldn't. Also, this article had been titled "Ali Pasha" since it was created until a Turkish user Ithinkicahn disruptively moved it without any talk. There previously had been two requested moves on this talk page, both reached no consensus to move "Ali Pasha" to "Ali Pasha of Ioannina/Janina/Tepelena" etc. Marmidukay (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The suffix 'of Ioannina' is crucial in differentiating from the dozens of Ali Pashas that existed in the Ottoman Empire. This change does not really serve a logical purpose. A more fitting decision would be to rename it to 'Ali Pasha of Janina' as it is the WP:COMMONNAME in literature, and I may very well put that as an RM once this is concluded. Botushali (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • On what basis are you making the claim that Ali Pasha of Janina is the WP:COMMONNAME in literature? If using these epithets, [Google Ngrams] results show that 'Ali Pasha of Yanina' is the most common, followed by 'Ali Pasha of Ioannina' and then by 'Ali Pasha of Janina'. Google Scholars shows [204 results] for 'Ali Pasha of Ioannina', more commoner than [186 results] for 'Ali Pasha of Janina'. Marmidukay (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not persuaded that this Ali Pasha is the most well known one. My own country had an Ali Pasha who was sort of a big deal, it's better to have all these Ali Pashas titled fully. --Killuminator (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reviewed this a few years back, as you can see in the talk page above, and didn't find consensus in sources about this being the one (and based on previous experience, reverting all references to point to this one would lead to a non-trivial ratio of ambiguous links). These days we also have tools like https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Ali_Pasha where the data for March '23 says that of the 350 people who came looking for Ali Pasha, 88 clicked through to the proposed primary topic (~25%), while a number of others were clearly visited by a lot of readers as well. With him listed twice, in the lead paragraph and inside the list, I find it hard to believe that we're just doing a horrible job of navigating people with this kind of formatting. I'm also not immediately convinced by the long-term significance argument laid above, esp. with the weird argument about Muhammad Ali Pasha (either he's referred to as Ali Pasha or he's not, that sentence doesn't actually make much sense). --Joy (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutrality in lead

[edit]

In case we need to mention that foreign Western correspondence frequently refer to the territories under Ali's control as Albania (Fleming, p. 116) we need to address that the subject population -by vast majority- belonged to a different ethnicity (Fleming, p. 157). Everything is stated on the same source.Alexikoua (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide me full quote of the particular sentence in the source? I will appreciate it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SilentResident you realized that Ali called his autonomous domains "Albania" only now? – Βατο (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an interesting information about it: Fleming 2014, p. 63: Ali realized the centrality of geography in the communal groupings of his day. He insisted that Ioannina, in the Greek district of Epiros, was Albanian, and he viewed the Albanians who lived there not as immigrants but as indigenous inhabitants of the region.21 He attempted to justify his designs on the coastal Ionian dependencies in part by claiming that they too were part of "Albania." – Βατο (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Βατο:, Is there any guideline violated by not knowing literally everything about what a ruler from centuries ago, did in his political life? You know, the editors in Wikipedia aren't bots but people who have lives too. Edit: Besides that, there is nothing wrong with asking editors to help the Wiki community with the verifiability of the sources. That's why I asked for the full quote on the matter. Also it will be appreciated if {{reply|SilentResident}} instead of {{u|SilentResident}} is used when we are replying to each other. The other is better reserved for those whose attention is needed but we aren't replying them. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 10:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SilentResident: it is widely known that Ali as well as the Western powers (France and Britain) who were interested to mantain diplomatic relations with him and his autonomous domains referred to them by using the term "Albania". Here is the quote about the diplomatic correspondences from the source used in the article, Fleming 2014, p. 116: "Psychologically, too, it is clear that Ali conceived of his territory in ever more independent terms. His correspondence and British correspondence refer frequently to "Albania" (namely, the territories under his control) and "Ali's Albanians." British concern over the tenuousness of their position had nothing to do with the Ottoman government but was based entirely on Ali's obvious strength and superior position. Indeed, as early as 1803 Hamilton had written to Lord Hawkesbury, the British foreign secretary, of Ali's power and influential position, observing that Ali was less needy of the Ottoman Empire than the empire was of him." – Βατο (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Βατο: an Ali enthousiast, I take? Thanks for your time in enlightening me about that historical person. Frankly, now thanks to ya, I know more about Ali than I ever did about Pyrrhus of Epirus or Alexander the Great. . --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but I dont see the link between “foreign correspondence referring to Ali’s territories as Albania” and the need to immediately add that Greeks formed a large part of Ali’s Pashalik for the sake of neutrality. I am not sure how it even became a question of neutrality, as it simply states that western correspondence referred to Ali’s territory as Albania. It is not a point of view, it’s just a fact. Botushali (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
foreign Western correspondence frequently refer to the territories under Ali's control as Albania but as I see Pouqueville had a diferrent view (Kallivretakis: Ο Γάλλος πρόξενος στα Γιάννενα F.C.H.L. Pouqueville (ca 1806) θεωρεί ότι το Παλαιοπωγώνι, η Δρόπολη (Αργυρόκαστρο), η Πρεμε�τή, το Τεπελένι, και η Αυλώνα ανήκουν στην Ήπειρο, ενώ περιλαμ�βάνει στη Μέση Αλβανία τη Μουζακιά, τη Μαλακάστρα, το Σκρά�παρι, το Μπεράτι και το Ελμπασ). Contemporary geographers also reject the view that Epirus was part of Albania. A very abstract geographic term of the time, nothing to do with the ethnic group.

@SR: Although his subject population -the vast majority of whom were Greek- have been noted for their nationalist impulses and cultural links to Enlightenment Europe, there is little evidence that Ali conceived of his desire for independence in such terms.Alexikoua (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear on that no wp:RS has ever called Ali's area as "Albania". Winnifrith for example calls it a "Greek-Albanian state" in his description. Claiming Ioannina as part of Albania falls straight into POV neither Ali encouraged any national movement.Alexikoua (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to WP:STAYONTOPIC. It is about Ali's diplomatic correspondence with foreigh states, there are no neutrality isues about that. – Βατο (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pouqueville was the leading French diplomat in Ioannina that time: this is the topic.Alexikoua (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's uncertain how this statement which when read in its full context doesn't refer to any areas mentioned in the specific part of the lead it was added, nor is it relevant for the lead itself was considered significant for a lead entry, but I removed it as it's WP:UNDUE and it has many POV pushing connotations. This article is not about the demographics of areas under Ali Pasha and the lead definitely won't be about them.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This part concerns the population of the territories he goverνned. I don't understand why this is trivial to lead, in fact it's essential to understand that this personality is connected to the region and time period when the Greek national movement culminated. If we want to summarize the demographic sitation in this region that this is a representative description, per wp:LEAD. On the other hand we should consider removing abstract georgaphic terms such as 'Albania' since they were not in widespread use that time. Alexikoua (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only comments on modern Albanian nationalim permitted in legacy section but on Greek national movement removed

[edit]

It's completely weird and POV to begin this section by stating something about today's Albanian nationalism and removing everything about contemporary national movements. In terms of neutrality we should focus on the specific era.Alexikoua (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about today's Albanian nationalism, it is about 19th century Albanian National Awakening. The historical context has been linked into the relevant articles, and clarifications have been also included: "Although Ali Pasha's intent was not to build a nation state, the legacy left behind by him was utilized by the Albanian elite to construct their nationalist platform". Your POV addition obviously can't stay. You are free to add content about Ali's influence on the emergence of Greek enightenment, but don't remove sourced content or introduce original research. – Βατο (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid disruptive removals: Ali's rule is connected to the Greek national movement, that's sourced by Harvard history professors. Don't pretent that it's OR, in fact Ali's rule is connected with the rise of the Greek national movement, (and to Albanian one but to much lesser extent). Removing that piece of information is not cool.Alexikoua (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ali's rule coincided with the culmination of the national Greek revolution not the Albanian one. As such scholarship is quite clear that his legacy is connected primarily with that. Ali never built a single Albanian school or contributed to any Albanian language institution. Albanian nationalism culminated at a later stage.Alexikoua (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This quote from a 50 years old publication "For the history of Ali Pasha's principality, which is in reality the history of mainland Greece for the thirty critical years before 1821, is intimately connected with the rise of Greek and, to a much lesser extent, Albanian nationalism." obviously can't be included. This claim "which is in reality the history of mainland Greece for the thirty critical years before 1821" is completely erroneous, it ignores that half of the territory of the Pashalik was in Albania, and that the autonomous state was actually called "Albania" by Ali himself. Your POV pushing editing is highly unconstructive. – Βατο (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "contribution" that Ali Pasha made to Greek and Albanian "nationalisms" is that he showed that the Ottomans could be challenged and his wars created a weakness in the Ottoman army that made "liberation" much easier. Recent critical scholarship focused on nationalism should be used instead of out of context outdated statements. I agree with Bato that that sentence is entirely out of context. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ali's rule coincided with the culmination of the national Greek revolution not the Albanian one. Ali did not care about Greek national causes. He killed and plundered every Greek who could hurt his interest. Is that a "contribution" to Greek "nationalism"? The Greek "revolution" happened primarily because the Ottoman Army was busy and damaged fighting Ali, and after his death many of his bandits who until then had killed and robbed Greeks went to fight for the "liberation" of Greece for personal profit (Androutsos etc). Ali never built a single Albanian school or contributed to any Albanian language institution. Albanian nationalism culminated at a later stage. Yes, because Ali did not care about Albanian national causes. Ali was a local criminal, not a patriotic benefactor. The "Albanian Pashaliks" could have joined forces together and created an autonomous Albanian state in the late 18th or early 19th century, but they did not because their goals were personal profit. A pasha was far from being a nationalist. Albanians had the opportunity to form their state before Greeks and Slavs, but did not do that because their "elite" consisted mostly of people who did not care about "nationalism" and gained from the Ottoman rule in a way or another. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the following quote from Dakin, which for obvious reasons is POV and inappropriate to be included into the article: "[Ali's] colourful career belongs to Greek as well as to Turkish history. His court was Greek and had been the centre of a Greek renaissance." Such biased opinions from old scholarship are to be avoided. – Βατο (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, why is it POV and why is Dakin, who offered one of the most neutral, detailed and scholarly accounts on the subject, biased? Simply being against your personal POV doesn't make everyone biased. By the way you just added Valentin (1956) [[10]] but removed Dakin who is much more recent.Alexikoua (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Valentini provides unbiased and so far undisputed information. Nevertheless, if you provide reasonable arguments and other reliable sources that contrast it we can discuss whether the information he provides is worth mentioning or not. On the other hand, old opinions which are clearly biased: "[Ali's] colourful career belongs to Greek as well as to Turkish history.", not even mentioning the crucial Albanian element, can't be included as quotes into the main text of the article. – Βατο (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dunkin is a professor of history (and Fleming is quoting him, so no reason why we shouldn't also), Skiotis the same (history professor in Harvard), you remove them as outdated and biased but replace them with even older accounts. You need to provide solid evidence that those historians are biased not simply recycling wp:IDONTLIKEIT narratives.Alexikoua (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Old secondary scholarship which completely ignores the Albanian element of Ali (he was an Albanian, supported by an Albanian political and military establishment, and he officially called his autonomous domain "Albania") while highlighting "Greek" and "Turkish" elements are not going to be included. Your demand is clearly WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. Find secondary recent reliable sources and add them, but not as quotes in the main text of the article, they are generally used for documented primary accounts considered to be relevant by recent secondary sources. – Βατο (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me summarize where you need need to provide citation: supported by an Albanian political[citation needed] and military establishment, and he officially[citation needed] called his autonomous domain "Albania". We have some abstract correspodence that sometimes mentioned the term Albania. His realm was never officially named as such: 'Pashalik of Yannina' was the official name.Alexikoua (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not to provide you citations here. All the relevant information and proper sourcing is already in the article. I suggest to read it, and accept it. But even if you don't accept it, not a problem anyway. – Βατο (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Downfall 1820-1822

[edit]

Obviously the military operations of 1820-22 belong to downfall section: regardless if the are joined by Greek revolutionaries or not they were armed operations where troops loyal to Ali Pasha participated.Alexikoua (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs restructuring, the section Influences § Greek War of Independence has acquired WP:undue weight for this article. Many parts of that section should be moved to the section Rebellion and downfall, while keeping in that section only a summary of the main influences Ali exerted on the Greek War of Independence. Also, only content directly relevant for the subject of this article should be included. We should keep in mind also the size of the article, which has grown substantially with the latest edits. – Βατο (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current article includes only information about the movement-operation-alliances of units loyal to Ali Pasha. There is no undue weight, but indeed restructuring of this information is essential as part of the 1820-1822 (move to relevant section).Alexikoua (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"During this event some of the Greek bands, especially Acarnanians as well as Souliotes,"

[edit]

Can anyone give the relevant quote from the source this is based on? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the Coordinated "Greek-Albanian" operations subsection. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mazower reports information about the attack on Arta, but Alexikoua inserted also Skoulidas (2001) supposedly supporting the inline text he added about Acarnanians and Souliotes. Nevertheless, Alexikoua's narrative that defines Souliotes as a "Greek band" at that time is ahistorical and is to be removed. – Βατο (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Mazower is a high quality source who gives info about Greek bands killing, stealing and torturing Christian civilians. I reworded the text to separate Souliotes from "Greek bands". Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ktrimi, it was still misleading, I suggest to see the quote from Skoulidas (2001), and to verify whether Souliotes did participate in the plundering, stealing and torturing events in Arta, and then we can reformulate it appropriately according to the sources. – Βατο (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my version I did not defined Souliotes as 'Greek band', (notice the ',' between [[11]]), so quote of Skoulidas p. 21 (who dedicated several pages to the Greek-Albanian agreements and operations of that era): Οι διαπραγματεύσεις οδηγούν σε υπογραφή ένορκης συμφωνίας από Ακαρνάνες οπλαρχηγούς, Αλβανούς και Σουλιώτες για την απελευθέρωση του Αλή (1/13 Σεπτεμβρίου 1821)51 . Καρπός της συμφωνίας είναι η εκστρατεία για την κατάληψη της Άρτας. Ο στόχος δεν επιτεύχθηκε καθώς οι σύμμαχοι, ιδίως οι Σουλιώτες και οι Ακαρνάνες, επιδόθηκαν σε λεηλασίες (trans: The goal was not achieved as the allies, especially the Souliotes and the Akarnanes, indulged in looting, while after the looting they left), ενώ μετά τη λαφυραγώγηση αποχώρησαν32 . Η συμμαχία διαλύθηκε. Δεν έχουν διερευνηθεί με επάρκεια τα αίτια.
Though Skoulidas does not mention the precise actions he is precise on the groups that took part in the looting. I will rephrase this part in accordance to the citation.Alexikoua (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktrimi, as I imagined. Alexikoua did define Soulitoes as a "Greek band": During this event some of the Greek bands, especially Acarnanians as well as Souliotes. And he then falsely stated that he did not, by providing a diff which actually is Ktrimi's clarification ([12]). Skoulidas (2001) did not support it, but even if he did, as I already stated, it would have been ahistorical and removed. I will add the relevant information about Acarnanians and Souliotes. Alexikoua misused the sources, if he is going to do it again, he'd better avoid editing this article. – Βατο (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I included information about the members of the alliance and those events. Tzakis 2021 ("Epirus" in Kitromilides (editor): The Greek Revolution: A Critical Dictionary) provides detalied information, due weight parts of which have already been included. As for Acarnanians and Souliotes, they are already mentioned as members of the alliance, and they were not the only forces besieging Arta. Side comment: Alexikoua should cite sources properly, the author of the chapter "Epirus" is not Kitromilides, but Dionysis Tzakis. – Βατο (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, tbh it is not surprising. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put words in my mouth: Ktrimi, as I imagined. Alexikoua did define Soulitoes as a "Greek band", though in political sence they were part of the Greek revolutionary forces. You also need to follow wp:NPA and stick to the sources. Removing Skoulidas is not a productive initiative.Alexikoua (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why a statement that dooesn't support by a specific POV should be de-facto "ahistorical and will be removed." such totalitarian declarations have no place per wp:RS and Skoulidas is a history proffesor with high credentials. So you need to be carefull with wp:BLP.Alexikoua (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put words in my mouth I did not, I just reported your edits and your false argument. As for your comment about BLP, I suggest to familiarize with that policy because it is not like you think. Selecting sources with extraordinary claims to add ahistorical narratives in the article should be avoided. But Skoulidas did not support your ahistorical POV pushing narrative. On the other hand, you disruptively misused sources. Noticing and discussing it is not a WP:PA, but a fact for which there is evidence, and which highly needed to be corrected. You inserted again the information after the sentence about the Greek bands, which results in displaying the same narrative, I moved it into a part where it is not misleading. – Βατο (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted this edit by Alexikoua. The reason provided by the editor to change it is erroneous, pasha was a higher rank in the Ottoman Empire, and Ali served as such, but also in increasingly independent terms, until the late years of his life when he acquired full and de facto independence and revolted against the Porte. – Βατο (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ali_Pasha_of_Ioannina&oldid=1252190369"