Talk:Ali Pasha of Ioannina

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) [[1]] 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)

Let me summarize where you need need to provide citation: supported by an Albanian political and military establishment, and he officially 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)

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)

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 [[2]]), 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)

@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 ([3]). 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)

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)

Well, tbh it is not surprising. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wrong spelling of the demotic form of Ioannina

It's completely wrong to use the form "Janina" in terms of transliteration of the demotic form Γιάννενα (even Giannena, Gannina, Yannena are preferable to the wrongly spelled Janina). Better to keep the archaic and official name for consistency purposes.Alexikoua (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

'Janina' is not completely wrong, it's very much a valid way to refer to the city. I noticed you put per official language of that time in your edit summary - now that's incorrect. The Ottoman Turks called the city 'Yanya', and since Turkish was the official language of the empire, then it would very much be possible for you and I to go through and replace every 'Ioannina' with 'Yanya'. I don't think that's necessary, however, so just for next time, don't go through replacing 'Janina' with 'Ioannina' by claiming that it was the official name in the Ottoman Empire, because that's simply not true. Botushali (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Janina is completely wrong indeed: wrong demotic spelling and never being official. You need to support your argument with precise backing by sources. Greek the was official language in Ali's court (see Fleming, and check images of all decrees signed by Ali Pasha, they were all monolingual Greek), though not archaic but it was still Greek and refers to a city inhabited by a vast majority by a Greek speaking population.Alexikoua (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Ali was never officially independent though… Botushali (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

A Firman issued by Ali Pasha in 1810, written in vernacular Greek. Ali always used Greek for all his courtly dealings.