Talk:Ali Pasha of Ioannina

Sources

It might be true that some sources are less reliable, but we need some evidence or argument first please as to why this might be the case so we can all be reassured and perhaps have a chance to address concerns. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The first reference is a copy from a 19th century primary source(a biographer to be exact), while the second reference is a book titled "Asian Homosexuality", which is not rs not only because of its author who in the past has written many pov books related to homosexuality but because it copies again western travelers/biographers like Lord Byron and that is again the source for the text added in this article, a 19th century primary dubious reference.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not sufficient to make such arguments on the basis that "its author who in the past has written many pov books related to homosexuality". This in itself violates NPOV. Wayne Dynes is Professor of Art History at New York City University. As such I think we have to credit him with a degree of academic objectivity. Although I fully accept that there may be many that do not agree with his conclusions. The primary source, meanwhile, seems positively what we're looking for. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The policy prohibits the use of any outdated primary sources so no they're not usable/reliable.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

How can primary sources not be reliable or useful? I agree that they should be contextualised in order to remove bias but I've never before heard that you would ignore them in historical research. How odd. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:PRIMARY, I don't know if the policy can be changed but we have to edit articles in accordance to it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

About the Dynes book: the text quoted here isn't even by Dynes. It's a chapter from some guy called Jonathan Drake, originally from an "International Journal of Greek Love"(!) from the 1960s. Its historical scholarship is so abysmal we simply shouldn't take it seriously. Presenting the whole devshirme system as if it had been purely a matter of procuring sex slaves is so far beyond anything even remotely debateble I refuse to enter in any discussion about that source. The other footnote fails to identify who that "popular biographer" was (certainly not Ruches himself, who, by the way, is a writer steeped in the anti-Albanian nationalist polemics of the postwar decades, and certainly no reliable historian either. Oh, and by the way, it was abominably poor English too ("typically", evidently a Greek barbarism here. Was that Ruche's error, or our Wikipedia editor's?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok - thanks. At least I understand the reasoning now. In which case perhaps we can agree some new text to cover this issue of Ali Pasha's homosexual relations. A good source I've found is this http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hQuHFPKp8L0C&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=homosexuality+ali+pasha&source=bl&ots=gcTiDWbGfq&sig=Fk8984L_sle1O-AcUCmNAWPMGHE&hl=en&ei=0ljMS-31DZPh-QbTno2QBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=homosexuality%20ali%20pasha&f=false which sites contemporary evidence from Byron, and Baron Vaundoncourt. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there is an entire library talking about these Ali Pasha's 'Ganymedes' (harem boys) [[1]], I wonder if there is any primary or secondary source that doesn't mention this, some examples:

• The diamond of Jannina; Ali Pasha, 1741-1822 (one of Ali's most famous biographies) [[2]]
• The late Lord Byron: posthumous dramas. [[3]]
• Even an article from the New Yorker [[4]] "long -haired Ganymedes, and grief-crazed women — the world of Ali Pasha,".

Off course there is no reason to avoid mention Ali's harem (both males and females). I understand if some users might thing that there is some kind of taboo situation on this.Alexikoua (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The sources seem to be widespread and seem to go hand in hand with depictions of 19th century albania as being a place where many men had same-sex relations, evidently with no sense of shame. How about the following text for inclusion:

There are widespread tales of Ali's sexual proclivities. Foss notes that "His energies and appetites were enormous and to cater for these he maintained a harem of some five hundred women. In addition...there was a seraglio of youths, some of whom were in constant attendance, as his pleasures were rumoured to be mainly homosexual". Contaldo80 (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you entering sources brought by the infamous user:haiduc? Can you enter the page number? I tagged as dubious and it'll be tagged such as long as we don't have any page numbers in the references. --Sulmues _talk 14:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking up re Haiduc I'm afraid. The Murray chapter in the work cited above begins on p.187 if you want to take a look, and goes into a fair amount of detail on homosexuality in 19th century albania. The Foss quote I used can be found in "The Muslim Bonaparte: diplomacy and orientalism in Ali Pasha's Greece" by Katherine Elizabeth Fleming, 1999 (page 20) Contaldo80 (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with Future Perfect and ZjarriRrethues, these primary outdated pov references can't be used.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

@Fut.: About Ruches he says that his source is Aravatinos.Alexikoua (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So what have we got now? A couple of second-rate authors uncritically perpetuating cheap orientalist phantasies. And editors here like Contaldo80, who will go to great lengths citing that Foss book, second hand, combining it with unashamed original-research speculation, getting its title wrong in the process, and failing to take into account the (much more reliable and much better scholarship) source from which they are actually quoting it second hand, the Fleming book, which, if you read the context, you will find is only citing Foss as a characteristic example of crap to avoid. This is close-to-blockworthy tendentious editing and falsification of sources. What a miserable show. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more constructive to have a proper discussion about the validity of sources rather than an unhelpful rant? You might also want to take a step back and avoid personal insults "editors here like Contaldo80, who will go to great lengths citing that Foss book". If you're implying that I'm showing bias or deliberately misleading then please do say so. And are you threatening to have me blocked because I have a different view to you on something?! Is this really a resposible way for an administrator to behave? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-reading Fleming I note that she criticises Foss for concentrating on "widespread and largely conjectural tales of Ali's sexual proclivities". She is critical of this because she believes that as a result such accounts are "remarkably bereft of any broader and more important historical tale than the one being played out in the wider Orientalist imagination of the west." My reading of that is that she does not deny that Ali may have had a male harem, but rather that this is a side-show. That's a different point than that being made by editors here. And I must confess to finding it odd in the extreme to discount primary sources - there are several contemporary accounts that reinforce the idea of the male harem. For a historian, primary sources are frequently the most important documents that you can find. But they must be contextualised to understand error and bias. The way forward, I would suggest, is to refer to the contemporary accounts but then refer to Fleming to make the point that we should avoid dwelling too long. To leave out completely without referring to something which is so widespread and common in beliefs on Ali Pasha would be unhelpful. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

How about?: Widespread tales emerged from visitors to Pasha's court of his sexual proclivities. Not only keeping a large harem of women, but also a seraglio of male youths, some of whom were in constant attendance. Such accounts, however, may reflect the wider Orientalist imagination of the west, and consequently underplay the more important historical role of Pasha Contaldo80 (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Contraldo80 FutureP explained you many times the reasons for not including anything similar. I will just repeat what I told you a couple of days ago: nothing based on pov/outdated/primary references should/can be added.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Er.... it doesn't work like that. There is no justification for not using primary sources, provided that we use a secondary source to contextualise. "Outdated" might apply to a secondary source written 50 years ago, but doesn't apply in the case of primary sources (and none of the secondary sources we are using are old). And in any case I'm not even proposing we quote primary sources! And finally can we stop with calling eveything "POV" - this is a very lazy argument that suggests anything that someone doesn't agree with or like is automatically due to someone else pushing their own opinion. I'm starting to detect bias - may Alexikouabe right that there is a "kind of taboo situation on this". I want to start hearing real concrete arguments and some solutions. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's been suggested that I am looking to suggest that Ali Pasha "was gay". Can I clarify that this is not my intention. "Gay" is a 20th century term with strong cultural connotations. Whatever Pasha may have been, he wasn't "gay" or wouldn't have recognised himself as such. The issue is fundamentally about whether he kept a male harem (and secondary whether that provides any evidence for homosexual, bisexual behaviour or pederasty). Contaldo80 (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually the only reason to avoid to mention something that's confirmed by the majority of Ali's biographies (primary/secondaries) is taboo and prejudice, not to mention that some Albanian nationalists found this a good field to initiate their edit war (like Kustrim and ip- revert only -accounts).Alexikoua (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua please read wp:npa and also note that FutureP isn't an "Albanian nationalist".--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The point that (talk) makes is that discussion is not proceeding objectively and dispassionately based on the facts. That may suggest a degree of prejudice or distaste for the issue under discussion - I sincerely hope that is not the case. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If that is a point made by Alexikoua, he had better refrain from raising it, for he is an editor who has hardly ever in all his career on Wikipedia made a single edit to any article that was not directly motivated by a single POV agenda (namely, making Albanians look bad and Greeks look good in the struggle over Epirus). What I object to in this situation is that we have a tradition of quite deeply and obviously flawed third-rate historiography in much of the literature, infected by orientalist stereotype and political prejudice, and that this tradition is being pushed along here through an unholy alliance of cheap sensationalism, an ethnic anti-Albanian agenda, and an apparent agenda in certain quarters of fringe "gay" scholarship that attempts to make pederasty appear ubiquitous. That agenda used to be pushed infamously by Haiduc (talk · contribs) here on WP, who thank God was banned, and who pushed it on the basis of equally third-rate sourcing on Albanian pederasty until that was rightly deleted. Here, we now have a single reliable source, and that is the one that explains how all the others are crap, which calls all the anecdotal material "largely conjectural", and which refused to deal with the matter any further beyond that. This is what we need to stick to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Right - that's why I suggested we say: "Widespread tales emerged from visitors to Pasha's court of his sexual proclivities. Not only keeping a large harem of women, but also a seraglio of male youths, some of whom were in constant attendance. Such accounts, however, may reflect the wider Orientalist imagination of the west, and consequently underplay the more important historical role of Pasha".

Incidentally I think your jibe on "fringe "gay" scholarship" is unnecessary and unwarranted here. It is quite legitimate to try and cover the LGBT angle in articles provided there is balance and substance. I accept fair discussion to get that balance right, but do not think it needs to be mocked. Nor do I have an interest in making "pederasty appear ubiquitous". Nor have I yet to hear convincing arguments based on evidence that the literature itself is fundamentally flawed. I accept Fleming's arguments that the orientalist imagination overplayed the sexual elements and underplayed the wider political elements. But that is not the same as saying that the sexual elements had no basis in fact at all. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I already explained why the Drake chapter is unusable. Fleming explains why Foss is unusable. Murray's chapter is just a naive, uncritical rehashing of the same kinds of sources, Foss first among them, without any attempt at a critical evaluation of these accounts. The guy is no historian, and I am calling this "fringe" because I suspect the reason that a work of this low quality could be printed in a superficially respectable academic outlet is only because it places itself in the niche field of gay studies, where it is shielded from the exacting academic standards of real historians. A work like that wouldn't last a minute in a peer-reviewed environment of actual historical research. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you're at risk slightly of over-stating this. The Murray work you refer to: "Islamic homosexualities", is a product of the New York University Press. Stephen Murray has also written for the University of Chicago and University of Nebraska. He sits on the editorial board for the Journal of Homosexuality which is a peer-reviewed academic journal. So it's not especially helpful to press the "fringe" argument. And the fact that Fleming directly refers to the issue of sexuality suggests the issue has some profile. We cannot dismiss the accounts of Baron de Vaoudoncourt (the french emissary) and Lord Byron too lightly - although I accept they may have reasons for providing the personal accounts that they did (wishful thinking in Byron's case?). All of this still leaves room for the relatively modest paragraph I suggested above which sets the scene and leaves readers to find out more on the arguments elsewhere should they wish. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Contaldo80 I think you should re-read WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I don't think any of these are relevant apart from WP:RS which is a helpful reminder about the use of sources. There's no orginal research here, nor synthesis of materials. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Contaldo, what you say about that author's publishing record just goes to confirm what I said: it's part of an academic niche activity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well even if we accept that argument that's not to say that niche issues can't be covered. Niche is not the same as fringe. They just should be given disproportionate prominence. I'm by no means suggesting that we set up 10 articles about Ali Pasha's sex life, I'm merely putting forward the argument that the widespread accounts of his male harem be referenced moderately and proportionately. I actually only came to this article because I was watching a documentary on the BBC at peak-viewing time that spoke in some detail about Byron's flirting with Ali Pasha. That must have gone out to an audience of 10 million in the UK. Are there any final arguments about the structure of my para before I insert? ThanksContaldo80 (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Contaldo80 there is no consensus for you to insert what you want to insert. Please don't resume edit-warring.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed paragraph is certainly better than what was inserted earlier, but it is far from acceptable. First of all, the terms "harem" and "seraglio" are used in an a-historic fashion, in a way that displays ignorance of how an Ottoman harem actually worked. Another reason not to trust Foss, nor anybody who uses Foss as their source. (An Ottoman ruler had one harem, and that was the living quarters of their female family members and female servants; it would have been unheard-of, and pretty stupid at that, if he put his presumed boy-servants in there too.) Also, the statement about some being "in constant attendance" is rather useless. (If you have a lot of servants, then of course you're gonna keep some of them in constant attendance, right?) – I still maintain that we have exactly one reliably sourcable statement, and that is: there were widespread rumours about his sexuality, but they were "largely conjectural". That's sourced to Fleming, still the only acceptable source we have. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Helpful clarification on harems/ seraglios, but I'm still not completely convinced that this presents a problem. The language I've suggested that "tales were told" relates to the tales about "a large harem of women, but also a seraglio of male youths, some of whom were in constant attendance." These tales don't have to be true and may reflect orientalist fantasies (as the rest of the suggested text refers) but they nevertheless existed - and in Byron's case proved extremely important in perceptions of Ali Pasha and his court. Incidentally why is everyone so confident that Pasha did not have male lovers, and that the presumption should automatically be against unless demonstrated unequivocally? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That some seraglios had been built, by Ali and his sons, is a historical fact [[5]]. What's controversial is the exact use of them.Alexikoua (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dude, really. That article is utterly irrelevant. Can't you see it uses seraglio purely in the architectural sense, as a syonym for "palace" (Turkish saray)? So, he built some palaces. Big deal. It says fuck nothing about how they were used. There's nothing "controversial" about it, there's just nothing at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree. "Seraglio" is a very specific term describing "the sequestered living quarters used by wives and concubines in a Turkish household." It is extremely unlikely that the author of this article would have made such a mistake in describing simply a palace by using such a specific term. And reading the article it says the seraglio was protected by the castle. So it would not make sense to say a palace is protected by a castle. Returning to the text I suggested - there are at least 4 contemporary sources describing a harem or seraglio and that there were young men or "ganymedes" within it. I really see no reason for us not to include it in the article. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just go and look up "Seraglio" in the OED? And yes, it makes perfect sense for a palace to be protected by a fortress - Ottoman palaces weren't defensive structures like medieval European castles. And I challenge you to show even one source, contemporary or not, that talks of males servants or lovers in the actual harem/seraglio in the concrete narrow sense. In fact, no outside observer could possibly know what went on there, because no outsider would ever be allowed to set foot in it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm rather beginning to lose track of the thread in this discussion. It had started off with trying to decide how best we cover the issue of whether or not Ali Pasha had male lovers. Now we've moved to discuss a very specific issue about seraglios. Are you arguing that Pasha did not have a seraglio? Or that the seraglio did not include male youths? Or perhaps that a seraglio is not what we think it is? The definition of seraglio I set out above was from the wikipedia article itself. Having read the OED I accept that a seraglio can be understood to describe a large and richly decorated palace (and palace in the sense here would seem to imply a private residency away from the public sphere). But does that change anything? We have 3 or 4 independent travellers (Byron, Vaudoncourt, Christowe, Frederick North) writing about the court of Ali Pasha and describing in various terms his interest in male youths or "ganymedes". I don't think we're saying that he kept them in the same way as he kept a harem, but that is not to discount their existance and his interest. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) What I'm arguing is that in the context of a discussion of sexual mores in Ottoman society, the only legitimate meaning of both "seraglio" and (preferably) "harem" is that of the specific Ottoman social institution ('private living quarters of female family members'), and that any source that mixes up this notion with the generic and explicitly sexual modern meaning ('multiple concubines/lovers') ipso facto disqualifies itself as a reliable source. (The issue of the neutral architectural meaning in the other paper, which is from an entirely different context, is quite unrelated to this.) The paragraph you just re-inserted is still unacceptable. I can only wonder why you can't develop at least a bit more creativity in your wording – you still have all that silliness about "seraglio", "ganymedes", "constant attendance" and whatnot in there (even with links falsely suggesting conceptual precision, which is exactly what is lacking here), as if things couldn't be worded any other way. The paragraph is also ungrammatical. And I don't accept Murray as a reliable source, for the reasons stated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's an issue with "silliness"; nor that the paragraph is ungrammatical. "Ganymedes" is the description used in the primary sources. But I am nevertheless happy to take suggestions as to how it can be redrafted to address 'creativity issues', and thus improved. Nor do I accept that Murray is unreliable - he's an academic writing for the NYU Press and we should give him weight. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Physical description

I can't see a reason why this small section is needed. It seems completely irrelevant with the rest.Alexikoua (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. This addition has several important problems: (a) it is an undeclared literal takeover (i.e. plagiarised), (b) it is cited second-hand (ostensibly to Flemings, but in reality it's from Plomer 1970, The diamond of Jannina: Ali Pasha 1741-1822), (c) the first-hand source that is cited (Fleming) is actually quoting Plomer only in order to criticize it as unreliable/stereotyped, (d) we have no account of what primary sources Plomer is in turn based on (obviously, a physical description of an historical personality ultimately needs a primary source, as Plomer in 1970 could impossibly have known these things without one), and (e) as an encyclopedic statement in our own voice, it is overly detailed and of unencyclopedic style. We could conceivably do something like, "... he was described by contemporaries as ...", and then cite both the primary source and a reliable secondary source vetting for the representativity of that description. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I google translated the following material: A long blond hair, blue eyes, filled with fire and brilliant mind, natural eloquence ... Pouqueville,History of regeneration of Greece, including the precise events since 1740 until 1824.Volume I, Paris, 1824. page 21. [6] Stupidus Maximus (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could add the following before the text:

• According to contemporary scholars...

--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that the sock is gone, I have removed the section, based on the above reasoning by Alexikoua and Fut. Perf. Nothing controversial there I hope. Athenean (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Salih pasha

has link to one grand Vezier at the beggining of 20. century. I do not believe that Ali Pasha had son that lived so long. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course this is about another person. User:Stupidus Maximus [[7]] before he received his sock block managed to create a mess in a number of articles, like this here. I've already reverted most of the disruption he created, but there might be some minor stuff (like this one) that should be dealed.Alexikoua (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge of sources and further reading

I propose a merge of the above into a simple "Sources". --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, further reading mainly consist of 19th century crap that's doesn't meet wp:rs.Alexikoua (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok, if that's the case it's fine to keep them this way. --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Moscopole

Perhaps this should still be included: "In 1788 Ali Pasha's troops razed the Aromanian metropolis of Moscopole." The article on Moscopole does not mention any early 19th century attack by Ali Pasha.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Map

It would be very nice to support this article with map of territory controled by Ali Pasha.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Words to watch

Text of the article has lot of words that should be avoided in texts of the articles on wikipedia.Here is link to wikipedia policy about words that should be avoided and I will list below only those words that are stated in this policy, although I believe that there are more of them in the text of the article but not listed in the policy:

Peacock terms

"unpopular Ottoman Sultan Mahmud II", “Hanko a woman of extraordinary character”, “Ali became a famous brigand”, “always in the field fought for the "Sultan and Empire" with great bravery”, “famous rebel Pazvantoğlu”, “maintained close relations and corresponded with famous leaders”, “he famously proclaimed”

Weasel words

"However, this has been refuted since it was proven that his family originated from southern Albania"

Expression of doubt

"Ali allegedly ordered " --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Puffery and POV

Map of Rumelia as of 1801.

"Albanian ruler (pasha) of the western part of Rumelia,"

There are several things that should be considered when taking in consideration above mentioned part of first sentence:

1. he ruled Pashalik of Yanina which is not in Albania
2. “the population of the region he controlled was predominantly Greek speaking” means that he did not rule Albanians only
3. Pashalik of Yanina is so small part of western part of Rumelia (in period when he rulled Pashalik of Yanina, it was maybe 2-3% of territory of western part of Rumelia, that statement that he ruled it is absurd and obvious puffery

I propose to make lede similar to Catherine II of Russia, that is obviously without insisting on her being German leader or Russian leader... but simply stating the facts about her ethnic origin and position.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Antid. do you even know what was the extent of the Pashalik of Yanina at Ali Pasha's time?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Remark under number 3 should be discarded.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ali Pasha Tepelena was Albanian and he was the most powerful ruler of the western part of Rumelia, not that he ruled Albanians also.

He ruled from Berat till the south of Peloponnese, which included many non-Albanians also. He didn't rule only in Yanina, but a much larger territory.

The region of Epirus, was in havy majoryt albanian speaking and not greek speaking, get your facts right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.73.141.172 (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 1

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: not moved. If the page is to move, there is no consensus on the most appropriate target, and the argument that this Ali Pasha is not the primary topic is unconvincing when this article is the longest and most visited (16000 a month compared to a 1000 times or less) of the articles at the disambiguation page. DrKiernan (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Ali Pasha → Tepedelenli Ali Pasha – (see talk page) Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Filanca (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the disambiguation page, one can see there are other Ali Pashas, also consider that the list there is rather incomplete. Although Ali Pasha of this article is one of the most famous among others, it looks like none of those are WP:PRIMARYTOPIC since none fits in the definition "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined". Consider, for example, two Grand Viziers of the same name, who were rather higher up in the Ottoman state hierarchy and historically important. I therefore propose to make this "Ali Pasha" article the disambiguation page and move this page to...

Google results for books published after year 2000(added keyword "the" in addition to searching for books in English to be safer):

• "Tepedelenli Ali Pasha" + the : 18 results
• "Tepedelenli Ali Pasa" + the -"Tepedelenli Ali Pasha": 14 results
• "Ali Pasha Tepedelenli" + the - "Tepedelenli Ali Pasha" - "Tepedelenli Ali Pasa": 15 results
• "Ali Pasha Tepelena" + the: 26 results
• "Tepelena Ali Pasha" + the - "Ali Pasha Tepelena": 11 results
• "Ali Pasa Tepelena" + the -"Ali Pasha Tepelena": 2 results

"Tepedelenli" looks like more prominent. However I am in no way sure about this, for some reason "Ali Pasha Tepelena" may be a better choice. Filanca (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Based on google books I'd say that Tepedelenli Ali Pasha is rather uncommon in comparison to other titles, but I'm not opposed to a more accurate title than the plain Ali Pasha. For example, Ali Pasha of Janina (84 results), Ali Pasha of Tepelena (39 results) and Ali Pasha of Tepelenë/e (29 results) are a bit more common than Tepedelenli Ali Pasha.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. In fact one of the books reads "Tepedelenli Ali Pasha became famous in Europe as Ali Pasha of Janina".[8] Filanca (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should also look at what modern sources (say, those published after 1999) call him as opposed books of all times. Filanca (talk) 20:24, 16 October 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.

Requested move 2

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus. The IP's advice was sound. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Ali Pasha → Ali Pasha of Janina – See previous request above. --Relisted. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Filanca (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Comment since the last move failed, shouldn't you have a different rationale? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Oppose: The vast majority of the recent bibliography mentions him just as 'Ali Pasha'. About the specific name, I see that the (according to post 1999 sources as stated above) 'Ali Pasha of Ioannina' has slightly more hits than 'Ali Pasha of Janina' in gbooks (45 vs 41). After all he had several epithets and never a specific one (Tepelenli, Tepedelenli, Aslan, Lion, etc.).Alexikoua (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It could also be Ali Pasha of Ioannina, but I failed to replicate your results, could you please provide the links for count? I suggest the use of most popular epithet. In any case, as explained in my previous request, this Ali Pasha does not fulfill WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria among a horde of others with the same name. More importantly, I see that history sources use "Ali Pasha" always with an epithet in order to distinguish him from others. I suggest a disambiguation page like that of Suleiman Pasha. Filanca (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Including only sources that date from 1950 onwards:

• Ali Pasha of Janina 68
• Ali Pasha of Jannina 34
• Ali Pasha of Yanina 30
• Ali Pasha of Ioannina 48 (In fact, 45 of those are from works that date to the last 10 years)--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, by far the most well known of all the Pashas named Ali. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Macedonian, according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a subject is primary "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". Although Ali Pasha Tepelena is undoubtedly very famous, we can not say that it is more likely to be sought in comparison to the horde of all other Ali Pashas in history. In Google Books, Mehmet Ali Pasha returns 82 results and Kilic Ali Pasha returns 47 results. These are just two, have a look at the List of Ottoman Grand Viziers for only those that ascended to the top position. Filanca (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

@Filanca, in western literature, simply 'Ali Pasha' points to this person by far. A brief check in gbooks can confirm this quite easily. The other fact that makes this move questionable is that if we wanna add an epithet, it's hard to choose one because he used a wide variety (Tepelenli, Ioannina, Lion, and other similar).Alexikoua (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Alexikoua; I see what you mean. The sources I look almost universally cite his epithet first (usually Ali Pasha of Janina) and usually continue just with "Ali Pasha" to save space. I checked other encyclopedias:

• Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire: Ali Pasha of Janina (Tepedelenli Ali Pasha) [9]
• Encyclopedia Britannica online: First brings you an extensive "disambiguation page" then Ali Paşa Tepelenë, byname Lion of Janina
• Encyclopedia of Islam - online edition: There is an "Ali Pasha" article which starts as ""is a name and title borne by numerous statesmen and generals of the Ottoman Empire". The relevant article is under Ali Pasha Tepedelenli heading. There are tens of articles (maybe 50) belonging to various people named Ali Pasha in that encyclopedia, each differenciated by epithets. [10]

You are correct about Ali Pasha of this article having bynames of close popularity. But ZjarriRrethues' search indicates Ali Pasha of Janina being twice more popular. Also consider this book: "Tepedelenli Ali Pasha became famous in Europe as Ali Pasha of Janina".[11]

Filanca (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually 'Ioannina' is a slightly more preferred form than "Janina" in post 1999 literature. I understand that in Turkish history "Ali Pasha" is a very common name, but western bibliography connects this name with the specific person. Just by clicing this name in gbooks [[12]], from the first 50 hits, at least 40 (over 80 percent) refer to the specific Ali Pasha.Alexikoua (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Turkish history is out of question. We should only consider how often one search for this Ali Pasha compared to all others and if that should include a byname (may be a separate question). I respect your count of first 50 books, but did you care if those books were solely written on him or if they contained other Ali Pashas and what about the rest of the books? Mehmet Ali Pasha (or Muhammed Ali Pasha closer to his Arabic name) is also very popular and there are several others. Is there a reliable way to count books on Ali Pasha except with words like Tepelene, Janina, etc.? That would be more conclusive. And what about all those encyclopedias whose articles contain a byname? You may add Encyclopedia Americana (Ali Pasha of Janina). Filanca (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Support:Ali is a very common name in Islamic world and we can very easily find tens of Ali Pashas. Up tp 1934 surname was not used in Turkey or in other Islamic countries once ruled by the Ottomen Empire. Thus epithets played the same role of the surnames. In other words epithets were not just honory titles, they constitute a part of personal names. Obviously the request is justified. But we can still discuss which epithet is better. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Excactly, in the Islamic world, but wiki prefers western literature. Nevertheless which epithet is another major problem, especially due to the fact that the proposed one isn't the most preffered in post-1999 literature.Alexikoua (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What a funny reply to my opnion ! Western or eastern, when people use similar names something is needed to differentiate them. Leo the Isaurian and Leo The Khazar are not people of the Islamic World, yet in WP they have their epithets. (Seneca, Pliny, George Bush, Johann Strauss etc etc.) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Btw why should we focus on post-1999 literature as the most adequate representative of modern literature? It's a very small sample of modern works that after all doesn't indicate any predominant use.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That was a suggestion by Filanca during the previous request. Sounds not a bad one, since old stuff (especially 19th century) in the contrary preffer the 'J(o)an(n)ina' and 'Tepedelenli' epithets. However, the main point is that for the vast majority of western literature simply "Ali Pasha" was and is enough.Alexikoua (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Alexikoua, when you say "vast majority of western literature", what is the source of your conviction? As I see most books in English language use an apithet when they first mention this person. And how can we discard the fact that other encyclopedias name their articles together with an epithet? I am not against use of "Ali Pasha of Ioannina" but Janina seems more popular. There is no clear preference for "Ioannina" post-2000. Google scholar returns 33 hits for Janina and 30 hits for Ioannina. I suggest using Janina due to its overall popularity. Filanca (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

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

wp:NINJA move

Although there was no move request, the article has been moved contrary to the previous results of the above discussions. In case we have no proper request the previous title should stay.Alexikoua (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained removals

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 [[13]].Alexikoua (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

Lead paragraph is a mess

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)

Spelling?

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

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)

Ali Pasha as Sufi

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)

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

Supporters

H.T.Norris, Popular Sufism in Eastern Europe: Sufi Brotherhoods and the Dialogue with Christianity and 'Heterodoxy' (Routledge Sufi), [14], 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, [15], 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, [16], 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), [17], p.216, ``Bektashism was widespread during the reign of Ali Pasha, a Bektashi himself,...``.

Gerlachlus Duijzings, Religion and the Politics of Identity in Kosovo, [18], p.82, ``The most illustrious among them was Ali Pasha (1740-1822), who exploited the organisation and religious doctrine...``.

Stavro Skendi, Balkan Cultural Studies, [19], 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, [20], 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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Skiotis offers one of the most detailed account about Ali's origin [[21]], 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)

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)

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)

Ambiguous title

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)

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)

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110731213016/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Ali_Pasha to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Ali_Pasha

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)

2018 removal of well cited text inserted in 2012

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)

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)

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)

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)

Now I am even more confused. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 14:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. You confirmed something for me regarding the other matter. Thanks.Resnjari (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Young girls from Ioannina

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)

Requested move 8 April 2023

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)

---

• Ali Pasha of Ioannina → Ali Pasha
• Ali Pasha → Ali Pasha (disambiguation)

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)

• oppose per WP:SOVEREIGN—blindlynx 20:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
  • sorry didn't realize he wan't a sovereign—blindlynx 00:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
  • How does the current title follow this naming convention? It liberally combines different guidelines to produce this outcome. WP:SOVEREIGN is specifically about monarchs, Ali Pasha was not a monarch, but a pasha (governor/general). Other Pashas of the Ottoman Empire likewise have such titles e.g Kara Mahmud Pasha, Ahmed Muhtar Pasha, Osman Nuri Pasha and thousands of others. Marmidukay (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
  • How are you not persuaded that his Ali Pasha is the most well-known one? I recommend you see Ali Pasha (disambiguation). Notice how every Ali Pasha in this disambiguation either has a first name, middle name or a last name e.g. Muhammad Ali Pasha, Çandarlı Ali Pasha, Ali Pasha Mubarak, Mehmed Emin Âli Pasha etc. These figures are never referred to only as "Ali Pasha" but always with their full names. The only three Ali Pashas who do not have a first, middle or last name and are only known as "Ali Pasha" are Ali Pasha of Ioannina, Ali Pasha of Gusinje and Ali Pasha (Mamluk ruler of Baghdad). The Mamluk ruler Ali Pasha is not even notable, the article link itself is a redirect to Mamluk dynasty (Iraq). Ali Pasha of Gusinje is alternatively known as Ali Pasha Shabanagaj and there is rarely any book title written on the latter; he is just mentioned in Albanian dictionaries and minor encyclopedias. Marmidukay (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• 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)

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

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)

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)

SilentResident you realized that Ali called his autonomous domains "Albania" only now? – Βατο (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Pouqueville was the leading French diplomat in Ioannina that time: this is the topic.Alexikoua (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) [[22]] but removed Dakin who is much more recent.Alexikoua (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Downfall 1820-1822

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

In my version I did not defined Souliotes as 'Greek band', (notice the ',' between [[23]]), 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.