Talk:Ali Pasha of Ioannina/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

"A ruptured fundament, leading perhaps to condylomata lata, a symptom of secondary syphilis; it seems to be the schoolmaster who spreads the rumour. Journey (I 114) describes Ali as having “… a disorder which is considered incurable …”

It's just a rumor, said by one person and cited by others. Hardly something to include in his biography, unless it is a 500 page book. Keep it Fake (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ali Pasha=Albanian?

For sure he is considered Albanian, but as I read one of Robert Elsie's books (a famous albanologist) she states it clear [[1]]:

Although he was not an Albanian himself, Ali Pasha is regarded by many Albanians as a national figure...

Alexikoua (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just read another text of a Turkish autho "Ahmet Uzun" [[2]], he says that his origins are not clear -he might be from Anatolia.Alexikoua (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes an Albanian see sources below which can also serve for the article itself:

• The life of Ali pasha of Tepelini by Richard Alfred Davenport, 'Alî Published 1837 Original from Oxford University link [3] all the text is free.
• The Muslim Bonaparte: diplomacy and orientalism in Ali Pasha's Greece by Katherine Elizabeth Fleming Edition illustrated Publisher Princeton University Press, 1999 ISBN 0691001944, 9780691001944 link here [4]

both above books are Ali Pasha's biographies but also others can be used such as:

• History of the Greek Revolution by George Finlay Publisher W. Blackwood and sons, 1861 Item notes v. 1 Original from Harvard University link here [5] all the text is free.

Aigest (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a user who keeps reverting, but according to what aigest has brought, the "vandal" seems to be right as Ali Pasha WAS INDEED an Albanian. Both Finlay and Katherine Elizabeth Fleming confirm that. I cannot see Elsie's words in page 402: Why should a non-working reference be brought here to say that he wasn't albanian and two better references that can be seen and that confirm that he was indeed albnanian, are blanked??? sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 21:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, now I see Elsie's page. This contetn should be disputed through discussion. Some more wording is necessary to highlight that various sources say different things, especially because Elsie did not properly study Ali Pasha, whereas the others wrote entire books on him. I disagree with Elsie and I think that the others should be represented: both positions should be highlighted. Btw, Alexikoua, I understand your frustration with the vandalism.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You should read wp:vandalism. Since your claims about Elsie are unbased, I dont see a point in your arguments. Robert Elsie is an expert on Albanian studies by the way. On the other hand the Turkish author 'Ahmet Uzun' states both possibilities, while they are others that claim that his ancestors came from Kiutahia 70 years before he was born.

Since the ip trolls have no access now, I will make some adjustments when I have time.Alexikoua (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you then! sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 22:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Chekrezi is completely Unreliable

1. ^ "Albania past and present" By Constantine Anastasi Chekrezi, The MacMillan Company New York 1919 p43

• Chekrezy is from 1919 and he is/was an Albanian nationalist.

Megistias (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Crimes

The crimes section is really interesting, it should be expanded.Megistias (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues' disruptive activity is completely meaningless here [[6]], his edit summary says that someone 'was not beheaded for this' but nothing like this was written in here. I agree and this section should be extented, there are too many historical facts that we dont mention at all.Alexikoua (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"Despot"

Re. the current revert war [7]: the term "despot" (where it isn't used in the technical sense of the Byzantine despotate, of course) is obviously a heavily tendentious term with negative associations, and as such POV. It is a misunderstanding of the WP:V policy to claim that we can or must use it here simply because some source uses it. First, obviously, not all sources use it, so there is no reason we should be obliged to follow the language of this one source. Second, a source, even a reliable source, may of course express its own POV. Historians out there are not obliged to follow NPOV, as we are. Working based on sources does not mean we should simply copy the POV of the source as expressed in its choice of wording.

I will revert the "despot" phrase as soon as the protection ends. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Marvellous, scholarly references only count when you use them. When I use a scholarly reference it's a POV and it is not worthy. "Despot" is a commonly used word for describing Ali Pasha in numerous scholarly references. Do I have to quote them all? What difference would it make? I am not worthy. Clearly Ali Pasha is not the only despot on WP. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that Peisistratos is referred to as a tyrant. Isn't that classified as a POV too? Or does it depend on the lunar cycle? Nipsonanomhmata (talk)

If I read the English Wikipedia, I'll learn that Ali Pasha must have been much worse than Hitler, because he was a despot, whereas Hitler was only "an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of a party". I also noted that he now has a Crimes paragraph, as Alexikoua wants, which again docile Hitler doesn't have. Bravissimo! --sulmues (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, stop trolling. Athenean (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, has got a point there. Let's start that section for Hitler. He deserves it. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Duh. Peisistratos is called a "tyrant" in the article in the technical ancient Greek sense. Just as Michael Kantakouzenos is called "despot of Morea" in the technical Byzantine sense. Ali Pasha wasn't a "despot" in that sense. As for use of sources, Nipson has studiously avoided understanding the point I made, not surprisingly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh clearly I must have a lemon for a brain. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct form for the name Ali pasha

I have a reference that spells the name "Ali pasha" and not "Ali Pasha" as in "Ali the pasha" multiple times. It is not correct to refer to Ali pasha as the Pasha Ali pasha because the title and job description is already in the name. Scholarly reference is "Brigands with a Cause, Brigandage and Irredentism in Modern Greece 1821-1912, published by Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1987. ISBN 019822863" by John S. Koliopoulos. I therefore suggest that the correct name for this page is "Ali pasha" and not "Ali Pasha" and that the name takes the common form "Ali pasha". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The following passages of text inserted by Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs) are clearly plagiarised:

original text	Nipsonanomhmata's text
…beyond diverting vital Ottoman forces from southern Greece and allowing the insurgents to take some important fortresses in the Morea and stabilize…	Beyond diverting vital Ottoman forces from the Morea and allowing insurgents to take important fortresses there, Ali's domestic policy had clearly been connected with the Greek revolt.
…Contrary to what has been customarily maintained, the armatoles were not destroyed… Instead of eliminating the armatolic system, Ali used the system to establish and enhance his authority and law and order in general …	The armatolic system was not destroyed by Ali who used the armatoles to establish and enhance his authority and law and order generally.
?	Those armatoles who were seen to be too defiant or powerful were ruthlessly hunted down or pursued till they slipped away.
…Nor did the Albanian despot attempt to replace Christian armatoles with Muslim Albanians, although many loyal Albanians were appointed in the security…	Nor did the Albanian despot attempt to replace Christian armatoles with Muslim Albanians despite many loyal Albanians being appointed in to the ranks of the security system.
…as has been pointed out, his fundamental objective in domestic affairs was 'to establish and maintain a close, working alliance of Christian Greeks and Muslim Albanians to neutralize the centuries-old entrenched authority of the purely Turkish element' in the region	Ali Pasha's fundamental objective in domestic affairs was 'to establish and maintain a close working alliance of Christian Greeks and Muslim Albanians to neutralize the centuries-old entrenched authority of the purely Turkish element' in the region.

In addition to the usual legal and ethical problems of plagiarising, this also (again) shows how plagiarism invariably leads to poor writing. For instance, the sentence beginning with "Nor …", which in the original follows directly after the "… enhance his authority and law and order in general …" sentence, is now ripped out of the context through the preceding interpolated sentence (which must be from some other source or context). The "nor" makes no sense at all any longer at that position. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So no verbatim plagiarism then! There is a limited number of ways that you can say something and the differences are more than adequate to avoid charges of plagiarism. And notice the last paragraph has quotation marks to indicate that it is quoted.Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to take a course in basic academic writing. If you don't recognise this is plagiarism, you have a problem. And by the way, the quotations in the last passage are part of the problem: this is Koliopoulos apparently citing somebody else, a fact that you obliterated by removing the introductory phrase and the citation. The quotation marks end up completely unmotivated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It was quoted and cited and it makes no difference anyway because you have deleted every single referenced contribution that I have made to this section. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Article is now protected from editing for a few days to stop this edit war. It's probably a good idea to go ahead and submit re-written versions of the disputed content here before trying to add them to the article again. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Forget it. I know when I'm licked. It does not make any difference how I word those references. They will be deleted as they are always deleted. I have spent hours trying to constructively contribute to this substandard section. I've witnessed correct spelling corrections being undone. I've witnessed correct Wikilinks undone. I have witnessed references undone, and references that I've had to use a Thesaurus on to change the wording, undone. That's it. I'm not doing anymore. Have had enough of being subject to blatant vandalism. Keep your substandard section. Long may it reign substandard. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's really that bad, you should probably initiate some form of dispute resolution in order to solve the problem. Or you could get in a huff, accuse another user of acting in bad faith and give up, the choice is yours. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've only got one head Zaphod. I prefer to use it where it is appreciated. I clearly am not appreciated here. So I'll take my head somewhere else. Ideally as far away as possible. Where did you put that Infinite Improbability Drive? That would do the trick. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)