Talk:Gedik Ahmed Pasha

Mennan
Gedik Ahmet conquered Ermenek, Silifke and Mennan. The first two are obvious. Ermenek in Karaman Province and Silifke in Mersin Province. But where is Mennan ? Can it be the present day village of Damlapınar (older name Manyan) ? Damlapınar is app. 35 km west of Karaman. (bird's flight) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gedik Ahmed Pasha. 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/20080505045940/http://www.corsaridelmediterraneo.it/indice/a.htm to http://www.corsaridelmediterraneo.it/indice/a.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090308030932/http://www.dzkk.tsk.mil.tr/TURKCE/tarihiMiras.asp?strAnaFrame=TarihiMiras&strIFrame=INDEX to http://www.dzkk.tsk.mil.tr/TURKCE/tarihiMiras.asp?strAnaFrame=TarihiMiras&strIFrame=INDEX

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of certain parts from my addition
Hi Demetrios1993. I have trouble going through everything you edited, so it would be great if you could tell me what you want to change (that is, what you have changed) here. I think it's important to have a full quote to put what Lowry--who is not a god; is one of the most dated sources among those provided, and is the only one trusting Stojanovski--said into context, to hopefully show that there is a difference between Serbian ethnicity and owning a fief in Serbia or even belonging to the Balkanic (Serbian) nobility. He states it is "established" he owned a fief in Serbia based on the obscure report of a Stojanovski, hence he, and only him of all scholars writing about the matter, mentions and trusts Stojanovski. I think it's important to expand on Stojanovski's research because: a) it dates to 1985; b) it was made in Serbia by a Yugoslav author in a Communist regime. Because of this and the fact that most or all other authors, writing after Stojanovski (but also after Lowry!) fail to mention ties to the Serbian aristocracy, and Stojanovski's research, and actually claim possible Albanian ethnic and/or geographical origin, I think we should use the conditional with "established"; which, in fact, is what Lewy kind of does himself. Had I wrote the article, I wouldn't have even mentioned Stojanovski unless a number of authors (not one) had done so, and, for such a matter as this, I would've liked to see a scan of the evidence. But even so, I reiterate that the ethnicity of an nobility is not the same of the people they rule over. Maybe the nationality, though this man was an Ottoman national for most of his life. Before I edited this article, there were claims of Serbian ethnicity. Now that I look at the history, it looks like you made or oversaw those claims. --Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. As stated in my edit summaries, the main issue i have is with certain information being repeated again and again. Namely:
 * (more cautiously?; MOS:EDITORIAL)
 * Do we really need two statements of his proposed birthplace being either in Serbia or Albania, or three statements that some support an Albanian origin; which by the way recycle the same sources? As a sidenote, reference [11] or Özdil (2018), says "Arnavut topraklarından geldiğinden", which translates as "since he came from Albanian lands"; that reference doesn't belong to the ethnic claims, but to the sentence that pertains to the proposed regions of his birthplace at the beginning.
 * Something else i removed, is the "Ethnicity" parameter from the infobox, which had "Unknown". You are correct that there is disagreement among scholars in terms of his ethnicity, thus i don't have a problem reinstating this. I also removed the parameter "Nationality", because we already had "Citizenship", but personally i don't have a problem with either. You want to use "Nationality" instead?
 * Lowry (2003) actually assigns an ethnic designation when he refers to "minor Serbian aristocracy". We know this because he says, "This identification [minor Serbian aristocracy], while undermining Yinanc's suggestion of Palaiologan ancestry for Gedik Ahmed Pasha, would make him a member of the Serbian military aristocracy,...". That statement clearly pertains to ancestry, because if he was just a mere aristocrat of the Serbian Despotate, then it wouldn't be undermining Yinanc's suggestion of Palaiologan ancestry.
 * Ok, now on Stojanovski's study. Just because he comes from Yugoslavia, this doesn't mean that what he writes is biased; nonetheless, in-text attribution is used through his name, and that's enough. Furthermore, there is also the respective article on İslâm Ansiklopedisi, which says based on the Ottoman archives (Tahrir Defteri) he was most likely from Vranje, including some other interesting information.
 * Last, the claims of a purely "Serbian" ethnicity, or being a "Member of [the] minor Serbian feudal family from the area of Vranje", in the infobox, were not added by me. If i recall correctly, i ended up in this article by checking the contributions of an IP. From then on, i only tried to keep the article as neutral as possible. For example, initially i had "Albanian or Slavic" in the infobox, then i saw Yinanc's claim and added Byzantine Greek as well, and on one occasion i removed Albanian because it lacked verifiability. Demetrios1993 (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Last, the claims of a purely "Serbian" ethnicity, or being a "Member of [the] minor Serbian feudal family from the area of Vranje", in the infobox, were not added by me. If i recall correctly, i ended up in this article by checking the contributions of an IP. From then on, i only tried to keep the article as neutral as possible. For example, initially i had "Albanian or Slavic" in the infobox, then i saw Yinanc's claim and added Byzantine Greek as well, and on one occasion i removed Albanian because it lacked verifiability. Demetrios1993 (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Demetrios1993. In the first case the repetition is due to the fact that the first statement was there before I edited this page, and I wouldn't have deleted it until someone pointed it out, like you just did. In the second case it's different: some scholar said he was "probably Albanian", other that he was from Albania or Greece, and others still only speak of Albanian origin.That there is a recycling of sources is your opinion, just as is my opinion that the Yugoslav Stojanovski ih highly unreliable. Yet I am not proposing deleting his claim. The only thing that is not an opinion, is that holding a fief in Serbia, or being part of the Serbian nobility, or military aristocracy, does not mean being an ethnic Serb.


 * There is no freaking "disagreement about his ethnicity" because only you, or whoever it is, care about it. Lowry does not assign no "ethnic designation" when he refers to "minor Serbian aristocracy", and in fact he thinks he was a Byzantine, though unlikely a Palaiologan.


 * Lowry is not G*d, and he is the only one trusting Stojanovski and actually reporting their "research" ostensibly proving that the man owned fiefs in Serbia, which does not mean being of Serbian ancestry and only a highly prejudiced mind could think that it means being of Serb ethnicity. He is the only one trusting Stojanovski and actually reporting that the man might've owned fiefs in Serbia. Lowry uses the conditional. He is saying that, if Stojanovski's act only says that this guy held a fief in Serbia and was father to the Pasha, than it is likely that he wasn't a Palaiologos or a nephew of Constantine, so he was a Byzantine Greek of other roots, or a person with some other ancestry (possibly Albanian, at least according to the other, majority of scholars). You: "This identification [minor Serbian aristocracy]," Lowry is actually saying that this identification (that is, if the guy Stojanovski claims owned a fief in Serbia is the same as the pasha), then the guy was part of the Serbian [military] aristocracy. There is paucity of information about this and other pashas. Stojanovski's claim, if true, undermines (not disproves) Yinanc's assertion, because he would've been mentioned as a nephew of Constantine in the cadastral survey, rather than (or not only as) the father of the pasha. Now, Lowry does not state the he wasn't a Byzantine Greek. He merely says that the thing undermines the suggestion of Palaiologan ancestry. Not Byzantine Greek ancestry, not Albanian ancestry. Lowry  makes no claim whatsoever regarding ancestry or ethnicity, while you spread misinformation regarding a "Serb ethnicity." We have one author saying nothing about ethnicity but that the guy owned fiefs in Serbia [and likely wasn't a nephew of Constantine] and SEVERAL authors, writing after the Yugoslav research and Lowry, that do speak of ethnicity, namely, of Albanian ethnicity and geographical origin from Serbia or Albania. Yes, Slavic would've been much better than "Serbian", which I don't even know what it means at the time when this person was active. Unfortunately, Lowry doesn't speak about ethnicity, nor ancestry, we only know, after other scholars, that "he might've been Albanian (or Greek)." And I do agree with the majority of scholars. You changed the ethnicity to Serb, with no sources to back this fake claim, and I think that shows you and all that you are not fit to "keep this article neutral".--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It's still unnecessary repetition of the same information. You don't need to have three different sentences discussing the same view, you can be more concise than that. For example, we could have:
 * You claim, "some scholar said he was "probably Albanian"". Which scholar writes that? Are you confusing Stavrides' (2001) quote who says that "He was also a convert, probably from Serbia or Albania.", because that doesn't speak of a probable Albanian ethnicity, but of a probable birthplace being in either Serbia or Albania.
 * You say that it is your opinion that the Yugoslav Stojanovski is highly unreliable. Sure, you are free to have an opinion and a POV. Aside of that, Stojanovski's work is being reported by Lowry (2003), a reliable secondary source, who accepts his findings when he says that "the 1985 study on the Serbian region of Vranje by Aleksandar Stojanovski, has established...". Also, it is of little importance how i view Lowry's reference to "minor Serbian aristocracy", because in the end, the article uses Lowry's words verbatim; think what you want of them. Furthermore, it isn't only Stojanovski and Lowry supporting an origin from Vranje/Serbia; as aforementioned in regards to İslâm Ansiklopedisi, there is also Giovanni Maria Angiolello (Venetian traveller) who wrote that he was from Serbia, and Hedda Reindl-Kiel who writes that the village Punuševce (Vranye) is mentioned as Gedik Ahmed Pasha in the Tahrir Defteri of 1570, which suggests that this village was his birthplace. He adds that, the fact that he built a mosque in Vranye, and allocated a waqf (vakıf) to it, reinforces this prediction. In short, these other sources corroborate Stojanovski's findings.
 * By the way, you also write that there are "SEVERAL authors, writing after the Yugoslav research and Lowry, that do speak of ethnicity, namely, of Albanian ethnicity". Are you certain about that? The two sources that speak of an exclusively Albanian ethnicity is Aleks Buda's 1967 work (translated and published in English in 2012), and İsmail Hami Danişmend's 1971 work. Both works predate Stojanovski's 1985 study. Furthermore, you want to emphasize that Stojanovski is Yugoslav, implying that this somehow affects his credibility. What about Buda's aforementioned work? Aleks Buda was an Albanian historian, a member and president of the Academy of Sciences of Albania, and a personal confidant of Enver Hoxha; the respective article describes him as belonging "to a group of most notable Albanian politician historians during the socialist period in Albania". Do you think his identity and political affiliation needs to be emphasized as well? Personally i don't.
 * Last, you write, "You changed the ethnicity to Serb, with no sources to back this fake claim, and I think that shows you and all that you are not fit to "keep this article neutral".". First of all, there is the aforementioned source to back this up (despite you interpreting it differently), and second, i already told you that it wasn't me that changed the ethnicity to plainly "Serb"; another fellow editor changed it (diff). The diff of mine that you shared above, is me approximately three months later, trying to protect the stable version from falsification of sources and POV-pushing. In the end, the most neutral way of describing his ethnicity is as "Unknown". Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Last, you write, "You changed the ethnicity to Serb, with no sources to back this fake claim, and I think that shows you and all that you are not fit to "keep this article neutral".". First of all, there is the aforementioned source to back this up (despite you interpreting it differently), and second, i already told you that it wasn't me that changed the ethnicity to plainly "Serb"; another fellow editor changed it (diff). The diff of mine that you shared above, is me approximately three months later, trying to protect the stable version from falsification of sources and POV-pushing. In the end, the most neutral way of describing his ethnicity is as "Unknown". Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Demetrios1993 it is my opinion that Yugoslavia was Communist regime. Yes, I am certain that several authors speak of Albanian ethnic origin, just like I am certain that only Lowry mentions Stojanovski and that he does not make statements about ethnic origins or ancestry. It isn't my opinion but a fact that no scholar claims "Serb origin" or ethnicity, but some claim Albanian origin. I will leave Lowry statement, but please refrain from deleting again my addition. That the research was made in Yugoslavia is a fact. If you have sources "corroborating Stojanovski" (though I don't know how they can "corroborate" a finding, nor how owning a fief equals ethnicity), then add them. But unless you come back with a verbatim "Serbian ethnicity" or "Serbian origin", don't claim again he was of Serbian ethnicity or origin. Buda is not the only cited author for the Albanian claims. You are free to specify that he was writing in Communist Albania. People know about Communist Russia and Communist Yugoslavia, and they know about Commuist Albania, so they will use their better judgement to decide who is more reliable.


 * First of all, there is the aforementioned source to back this up (despite you interpreting it differently), man, what the heck are you talking about? Unless you come back with a verbatim "Serbian ethnicity", you cannot and will not claim that in the article, no matter how you fancifully interpret Lowry. Yes, you did change the "ethnicity" to "Serb", willingly setting the article that way, that alone should prevent you from editing this article again. I am now going to edit the article with what needed. Please, refrain from edit warring again.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You do not have consensus for any of these changes, yet you simply ignored the talk page and went straight-ahead to reinstate your problematic version, thinking that this would somehow stay as it is? Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Demetrios1993 If you don't ping me, I won't know that you replied, and because you used this "od[d]" feature of which I knew nothing about, I thought you had abandoned the conversation. Like I said several times now, you cannot change what the sources say. What you attempted to delete several times now (his Greek or Albanian ethnicity) is what the majority (actually, all but one, which still doesn't contradict the others) of the sources state. You, on the other hand, have no source for what you think his ethnicity was (Serb), what you think one author (Lowry) implied, which is what you promulgated and now defend. I even put quotes to my sources... I don't need "consensus" for that. I agree that I need consensus for reporting that Stojanovski's study was made in communist Yugoslavia. You talked about an Albanian author close to Hoxa, but I actually haven't cited him. I didn't cite any author working in a Communist regime. I simply think that it is worth to report this fact, maybe in a footnote. But I am willing to discuss it. A third opinion would help.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
I have observed a number of issues in the current version of the article. I will try and list them below one by one, commenting on what i find problematic, and on which i am willing to compromise for the sake of consensus.

Lede


 * Comment: You removed the alternative names that appear in bibliography for no apparent reason. I had it as "Gedik Ahmed Pasha (died 18 November 1482), also known as Keduk Ahmed Pasha, Achomat Bassa, and Agmat Bassa,[1] was an Ottoman statesman...".

Birthplace paragraph


 * Comment: For the sake of consensus, even though i didn't agree with this wording originally, nor its position in the paragraph that pertains to the subject's brithplace, i now give my consent to it. After all, the relevant quote pertains to both his birthplace and his noble ancestry and we cannot added it to both, thus both locations are acceptable. I also had an issue with a wikilink in the quote of the source, namely the "minor Serbian aristocracy" phrase, per my already expressed disagreement on the interpretation of "Serbian" in this context, but for the sake of consensus i will compromise on this as well. Though, Lowry is not a 1985 source, but a 2003 source; he is the one commenting on the 1985 study as a secondary source, giving his own thoughts on it, and since we agreed on the use of a chronological order, the sentence should be moved under Stavrides (2001).

Regarding the birthplace paragraph, let me close by saying that we also have this following source, which will be added last, after the sentence pertaining to Lowry (2003), since it is from 2010.
 * Comment: Source [13] is problematic and should be removed, because it lacks an author and references; it's just an unsourced newspaper article written by an anonymous author. In my opinion it looks more like a mistake of confusing what sources say about him being a sanjak-bey of Avlona (Vlore). Furthermore, source [14] is not very clear on this being his birthplace, because it says "Gedik Ahmet Pasha of Avlon", and this could also pertain to him being the sanjak-bey of Avlona (Vlore), not necessarily his birthplace, but that's my opinion. Anyway, i am willing to leave this part and source [14] as it is, but [13] has to be removed for the aforementioned reasons.

Ancestry paragraph


 * Comment: This shoud ideally be changed to ancestry, because it is a term that can pertain both to ethnicity and other forms of ancestry, such as a certain nobility. Distinction between the two can be elaborated in the respective sentences independently.


 * Comment: Source [17] in that sentence is unrelated to what the sentence describes and should be removed.


 * Comment: I don't think that parenthesis is required there. Furthermore, source [5] in reality dates to 1967, namely Aleks Buda's 1967 work (translated and published in English in 2012); David Hosaflook simply translated the original 1967 text without giving any of his own ideas on the subject, thus this source per the chronological order we have agreed upon, should move further up. Source [6] should include the whole relevant quote (i will mention more about it below). Source [7] is from 2005, not the 2010s, thus it should be moved further up. Source [20] says, "Gedik Ahmet Pasha was probably Albanian, perhaps Greek, or even Serbian."; thus this sentence should be presented independently, since it deals with more than one ethnicity. You cite it again with the other 21st scholars below, but there is no mention whatsoever of the Serbian consideration mentioned.


 * Comment: Kia should be removed from the parenthesis and ideally be mentioned with the other scholars at the beginning of the sentence; it makes no sense to have the name by itself at the end within a parenthesis when the relevant scholars are mentioned at the beginning. Source [21] shoud be removed from the sentence, because Stavridis doesn't mention anything about ethnicity; simply writes that he "was also a convert, probably from Serbia or Albania", and this is already included in the Birthplace paragraph (source [1]). Source [20], exactly because it also speaks of Serbs as well, should be removed and mentioned indipendently with a quotation of what it says. Source [8] doesn't assign either a Greek or an Albanian ethnicity to Gedik. It says "He was followed by Mahmut Pasha and Gedik Ahmet Pasha of Greek and Croatian origin.", namely it gives a Croatian origin for him (the Greek pertains to Mahmut Pasha), and thus the source should be mentioned indipendently in a new sentence. Source [14] is from 1997, not a 21st century source, and should thus be removed from the sentence and mentioned further up.


 * Comment: Source [23] makes no mention of his refusal to go to war against the Albanians; it says "Since Gedik Ahmed Pasha came from Albanian lands, he knew how strong the Shkodra Castle was like an eagle's nest.", thus it should be removed from that part of the sentence. Source [5] makes no mention of it either; simply says "Gedik Ahmed Pasha may have been of Albanian origin and knew Albania's people and territory well.", and should likewise be removed (it's already mentioned in another sentence above by the way). Source [24] likewise makes not mention of that; it simply says "Gedik Ahmet Pasha - ethnicity: Albanian or Greek", and should be removed (it's already mentioned in another sentence above as well).

Regarding the Ancestry/Ethnicity paragraph, let me close by saying the following. As you see, a main issue regarding it is the reuse of irrelevant sources, which also pertains to WP:CITEKILL. I also have to add, that there are additional sources supporting a Serbian ancestry. This brings me to another issue that will have to be addressed; do we make an independent mention of each source (i am referring to all, with their relevant years in parentheses), or group them together per 2010s and 21st century?
 * Comment: That part should be expanded along with the full relevant quote of source [6], which is missing for now (the rest is in the misplaced source [23]). The full quote of source [6]/[23] says, "Gedik Ahmed Pasa, Arnavut topraklarından geldiğinden İskodra Kalesi'nin kartal yuvası gibi ne muhkem bir yer olduğunu bilirdi. ... Kahraman ve yaman bir stratejist olarak bilinen Gedik Ahmed Pasa'nın, bu sefere çıkmakta gösterdiği tereddüt için ortalıkta çeşitli rivayetler vardı. Bazıları, Arnavut asıllı olduğu için, ırkdaşlarının üstüne gitmek istemediğini bazi kimseler de İskodra Kalesi’nın ele geçirilmesi güç bir kale olduğu için bundan kaçındığını söylerlerdi.", which translates as "Since Gedik Ahmed Pasa came from Albanian lands, he knew how strong the İskodra Castle was, like an eagle's nest. ... There were various rumors about the hesitancy of Gedik Ahmed Pasa, who is known as a heroic and fierce strategist, to go on this expedition. Some said that because he was of Albanian origin, he did not want to go against his fellows, while others said that he avoided the Iskodra Fortress because it was a difficult fortress to capture.". That part was included in my last edit and was removed for no reason. Also, you should include the relevant quote of source [25], to check whether it is related.

Infobox

The infobox should also be more neutral. The "Ethnicity" parameter should ideally be listed as "Unknown", because it is unknown after all, and we cannot mention Greek, Albanian, Serbian, and even Croatian along with their respective sources. The infobox is meant to give a small summary on the key features of the page's subject; MOS:INFOBOX. Additional information is found in the main body of the article. Furthermore, in the "blank2" parameter you added "removing un"; what's that about? Last, we have a "citizenship" and a "nationality" parameter; either one of the two would be fine, instead of both.

Take note, that if no consensus is reached between us, third-party assistance will be requested per Dispute resolution, so i urge you to look at the above issues closely. Demetrios1993 (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Good morning Demetrios1993, and thanks for pinging me.


 * Lead


 * Not done on purpose. If something has reliable sources, for me is always fine.


 * Birthplace paragraph
 * Comment: The order is chronological to the sources' publication date (as time goes on, scholars' view shift), as for the wording: the sentence is almost verbatim from Lowry, who reports on a 1985 study without adding any new information/discoveries to it, with the past perfect tense that is true in two ways (Stojanovski had established so in 1985. By the the 2000s and 2010s other authors believed that, e.g. the birthplace, was Vlore, based on other circumstantial evidence; it is also conditional, thus not contradicting the other sources claiming he came from Albania. Another matter, then, and to the discretion of the reader, is whether building a mosque or reportedly holding a fief in a given place equals birth therein, I will come back to this later). All Lowry says is that he was very likely part of the aristocracy (he, likely, thinks he was of Byzantine descent, but is disinclined to believe he was a nephew of Constantine, as some other evidence also had established, in all senses) While the other authors do mention ethnicity, Lowry doesn't. Ethnicity is a rather complicated matter, and being part of the nobility of the short-lived Serbian Despotate or the so-called empire that preceded it (which, all evidence being real, is still a conclusion that Stojanovski, and only Stojnovski, echoed by Lowry makes; e.g. the Turkish encyclopedia doesn't follow him) doesn't mean being an ethnic Serb, not even of the same origin as the average Serbian noble (due to the proximity of the location (Vranje) to Albanian and Byzantine lands and the migratory events that happened after the arrival of the Turks and the overall paucity of Medieval sources, especially from the Balkans, and specially from Kosovo. We don't know anything exact of those days, and we don't even know the subject's birth-date, nor that of his father. They and their recent ancestors were born into the Byzantine-Turkish, Albanian-Turkish and Serbian-Turkish wars, as important territorial changes and migrations took place. You are right when you say that the relevant quote pertains to both his birthplace and his noble ancestry. It pertains to his putative aristocratic descent and nothing more, but I wouldn't insert it in the section about ethnicity. Rather, it is apparent to the reader that, if what Stojanovski had established is true, he and his father held a fief at some point in their life. Even so, we don't know what kind of "noble ancestry" he had: he might have descended from an Albanian or Hungarian mercenary fighting for the Serbs during the Battle of Kosovo and thus have just recently gained their noble status; or he might've had deeper Byzantine ancestry tracing back to the 11th century, like, e.g., the Angelos. What Lowry says is that this identification (guy Gedik mentioned in Stojanovski's tehrir defter with Gedik Ahmed Pasha) undermines his Palaiologan ancestry because, for one thing, it would've been reported in Stojanovski's document, and for another, there would be temporal issues in Lowry's attempt to connect the guy to Constantine, which is the only reason why he brings up the topic in the first place (it is not, like, e.g., Sevinç's, an entry dedicated specifically to Gedik A.P.). Then, if you read Lowry's full quote, you realize that he contradicts himself, since in the beginning he states: As for the third of Constantine's nephews, his subsequent career is harder to trace. There is, however, a possibility that when he emerged from the Palace he did so as Gedik Ahmed Pasha, who [...]. Again, Lowry is relying exclusively on a 1985 study, that, as a matter of fact, does not establish his place of birth. We don't know on what Stavirides is relying. As for the wikilink: how can you interpret it differently? Or you, or who believes he was born in Serbia, think he was 72 years old when he became Gran Vizier? I also, for the sake of consensus, am willing to give up the wikilink. We could place Lowry after Stavirides, but then Vlorë at the end. To be fair (strictly speaking) I placed Lowry first, Vlore next and Stavirides third, even though Akit's article is most recent, to have the more neutral Stavirides at the bottom.
 * Comment: The order is chronological to the sources' publication date (as time goes on, scholars' view shift), as for the wording: the sentence is almost verbatim from Lowry, who reports on a 1985 study without adding any new information/discoveries to it, with the past perfect tense that is true in two ways (Stojanovski had established so in 1985. By the the 2000s and 2010s other authors believed that, e.g. the birthplace, was Vlore, based on other circumstantial evidence; it is also conditional, thus not contradicting the other sources claiming he came from Albania. Another matter, then, and to the discretion of the reader, is whether building a mosque or reportedly holding a fief in a given place equals birth therein, I will come back to this later). All Lowry says is that he was very likely part of the aristocracy (he, likely, thinks he was of Byzantine descent, but is disinclined to believe he was a nephew of Constantine, as some other evidence also had established, in all senses) While the other authors do mention ethnicity, Lowry doesn't. Ethnicity is a rather complicated matter, and being part of the nobility of the short-lived Serbian Despotate or the so-called empire that preceded it (which, all evidence being real, is still a conclusion that Stojanovski, and only Stojnovski, echoed by Lowry makes; e.g. the Turkish encyclopedia doesn't follow him) doesn't mean being an ethnic Serb, not even of the same origin as the average Serbian noble (due to the proximity of the location (Vranje) to Albanian and Byzantine lands and the migratory events that happened after the arrival of the Turks and the overall paucity of Medieval sources, especially from the Balkans, and specially from Kosovo. We don't know anything exact of those days, and we don't even know the subject's birth-date, nor that of his father. They and their recent ancestors were born into the Byzantine-Turkish, Albanian-Turkish and Serbian-Turkish wars, as important territorial changes and migrations took place. You are right when you say that the relevant quote pertains to both his birthplace and his noble ancestry. It pertains to his putative aristocratic descent and nothing more, but I wouldn't insert it in the section about ethnicity. Rather, it is apparent to the reader that, if what Stojanovski had established is true, he and his father held a fief at some point in their life. Even so, we don't know what kind of "noble ancestry" he had: he might have descended from an Albanian or Hungarian mercenary fighting for the Serbs during the Battle of Kosovo and thus have just recently gained their noble status; or he might've had deeper Byzantine ancestry tracing back to the 11th century, like, e.g., the Angelos. What Lowry says is that this identification (guy Gedik mentioned in Stojanovski's tehrir defter with Gedik Ahmed Pasha) undermines his Palaiologan ancestry because, for one thing, it would've been reported in Stojanovski's document, and for another, there would be temporal issues in Lowry's attempt to connect the guy to Constantine, which is the only reason why he brings up the topic in the first place (it is not, like, e.g., Sevinç's, an entry dedicated specifically to Gedik A.P.). Then, if you read Lowry's full quote, you realize that he contradicts himself, since in the beginning he states: As for the third of Constantine's nephews, his subsequent career is harder to trace. There is, however, a possibility that when he emerged from the Palace he did so as Gedik Ahmed Pasha, who [...]. Again, Lowry is relying exclusively on a 1985 study, that, as a matter of fact, does not establish his place of birth. We don't know on what Stavirides is relying. As for the wikilink: how can you interpret it differently? Or you, or who believes he was born in Serbia, think he was 72 years old when he became Gran Vizier? I also, for the sake of consensus, am willing to give up the wikilink. We could place Lowry after Stavirides, but then Vlorë at the end. To be fair (strictly speaking) I placed Lowry first, Vlore next and Stavirides third, even though Akit's article is most recent, to have the more neutral Stavirides at the bottom.


 * Comment: It should be kept. Double source for the claim. You say one doesn't cite the author, but that makes no difference, because in such a case (newspaper article) the responsibility for what is published goes to the publisher (a reliable source). The fact no author is cited doesn't make the source less reliable. In my opinion it looks more like a mistake of confusing what sources say about him being a sanjak-bey of Avlona (Vlore). Maybe it's better to keep our opinions to ourselves, so I don't have to talk about Stojanovski 1980s study. I disagree with your view of what  source [14]  says. We can move all sources in that sentence to the end of it. Hence, reliable source[13] stays, and the three of them are moved to the bottom of the sentence.
 * Comment: It should be kept. Double source for the claim. You say one doesn't cite the author, but that makes no difference, because in such a case (newspaper article) the responsibility for what is published goes to the publisher (a reliable source). The fact no author is cited doesn't make the source less reliable. In my opinion it looks more like a mistake of confusing what sources say about him being a sanjak-bey of Avlona (Vlore). Maybe it's better to keep our opinions to ourselves, so I don't have to talk about Stojanovski 1980s study. I disagree with your view of what  source [14]  says. We can move all sources in that sentence to the end of it. Hence, reliable source[13] stays, and the three of them are moved to the bottom of the sentence.


 * Thanks for the source you provided. We will definitely include it. I will likely comeback with a later source stating he was born in Albania though (EDIT: In fact, you preceded me, by providing a translation for Özdil 2018, see below).


 * Ethnicity paragraph
 * Comment: I strongly disagree and reject you suggestion. I also point out that the section has no name. Now let me say that only someone wanting to point to a Serbian nature for the subject (by mixing ethnicity and ancestry and leaning to Lowry) could want to change ethnicity to ancestry, because that way a misenterpretation of Lowry may grant a foothold to a Serbian identification. But that is not your nor my case, because we are both in good faith. We have zero sources mentioning ancestry, but three sources (+1 doing so with other words, but clearly doing so--i.e. Kia) mentioning ethnicity. Now, somebody added the "ethnicity" entry in the infobox. We do not have any source whatsoever mentioning Serb ethnicity, not even indirectly but unequivocally so. On the other hand, we have at least three sources speaking verbatim of Albanian of Greek ethnicity. Not only Lowry doesn't mention ethnicity, but he doesn't even mention ancestry, of any kind. It is possible that he excludes that the subject was a nephew of Constantine, but he contradicts himself too. That book, translated, edited and supervised by David Hosaflook, isn't mentioned in the parenthesis anymore. David Hosaflook simply translated the original 1967 text without giving any of his own ideas on the subject, thus this source per the chronological order we have agreed upon, should move further up. Hosaflook "simply" translated and edited the book. This author had the capacity to do it, and published his work in 2012 with a non-independent publisher, actually the Tirana Times. He is after all writing in the 2010s. I'm not sure as to who added the footnote. Probably the 1960s author. That is only one of many sources, dating to the 2010s, that uphold an Albanian origin. I agree that, if we want the be really precise, we should move the source somewhere up. The changes you ask for (e.g. the 2005 source) are trivial, and may give spotlight to some authors that might have to be mentioned individually, since I don't want to give up on including the source in the article. But I will fix that somehow.
 * Comment: I strongly disagree and reject you suggestion. I also point out that the section has no name. Now let me say that only someone wanting to point to a Serbian nature for the subject (by mixing ethnicity and ancestry and leaning to Lowry) could want to change ethnicity to ancestry, because that way a misenterpretation of Lowry may grant a foothold to a Serbian identification. But that is not your nor my case, because we are both in good faith. We have zero sources mentioning ancestry, but three sources (+1 doing so with other words, but clearly doing so--i.e. Kia) mentioning ethnicity. Now, somebody added the "ethnicity" entry in the infobox. We do not have any source whatsoever mentioning Serb ethnicity, not even indirectly but unequivocally so. On the other hand, we have at least three sources speaking verbatim of Albanian of Greek ethnicity. Not only Lowry doesn't mention ethnicity, but he doesn't even mention ancestry, of any kind. It is possible that he excludes that the subject was a nephew of Constantine, but he contradicts himself too. That book, translated, edited and supervised by David Hosaflook, isn't mentioned in the parenthesis anymore. David Hosaflook simply translated the original 1967 text without giving any of his own ideas on the subject, thus this source per the chronological order we have agreed upon, should move further up. Hosaflook "simply" translated and edited the book. This author had the capacity to do it, and published his work in 2012 with a non-independent publisher, actually the Tirana Times. He is after all writing in the 2010s. I'm not sure as to who added the footnote. Probably the 1960s author. That is only one of many sources, dating to the 2010s, that uphold an Albanian origin. I agree that, if we want the be really precise, we should move the source somewhere up. The changes you ask for (e.g. the 2005 source) are trivial, and may give spotlight to some authors that might have to be mentioned individually, since I don't want to give up on including the source in the article. But I will fix that somehow.


 * You cite it again with the other 21st scholars below, but there is no mention whatsoever of the Serbian consideration mentioned. You seem to be really interested with trivial mentions. I will tell you why I didn't mention that (thus favoring Serbian nationalists or individuals who care about such things as origins or ancestry, rather than nationality), it was because a) it is the only source mentioning it, and it does so emphasizing that Serbian origin is the less likely of the three, while Albanian is the most likely. Then, if we are to give weight to passing mention in single sources, we would definitely have to include Vlorë as a possible place of birth in the infobox, and Croatian origin in the text. Again, I chose to avoid that, to make things equal, and of course report the widespread view.


 * Comment: You:  it makes no sense to have the name [Kia] by itself at the end within a parenthesis when the relevant scholars are mentioned at the beginning. you misunderstood something perhaps. The scholars are included in the footnote, within the sources after Kia. Kia is mentioned alone (an "e.g." should be added though) to avoid a long list. Someone who read the article and didn't know about the discussion, could ask themselves: why are all these (reliable but not particularly known worldwide) scholars mentioned in the article? Why so many of them? Is everybody throwing in their name to get some advertise? The sentence actually says "Other 21st-century scholars, like Danişmend and Sevinç [did, in the 1970s and 1990s], also state that he was either an ethnic Greek or an ethnic Albanian (Kia, 2017)". I agree with deleting the parenthesis altogether, but in that case we should rephrase the bit to the extent of something like "The widespread view among 21st century scholars is that he was an Albanian or, less likely, a Greek," because that is what the widespread view is, and mine was an attempt not to be too clear in that respect, for the sake of those Serbian, Hungarian and Croatian readers who, probably wrongly bust still legitimately since we don't have a birth certificate and a an official statement by the subject, like to believe he was Croatian, Serbian or other things. I will repeat below why "origin" in these sources should be read as ethnical orgin, non geographical, the reason being that we have three sources speaking clearly of Greek or Albanian ethnicity, and none speaking of other ethnicities. Conversely, a larger number of sources speak of birth in Serbia (rather than Albania, a minority, but still existent, view).
 * Comment: You:  it makes no sense to have the name [Kia] by itself at the end within a parenthesis when the relevant scholars are mentioned at the beginning. you misunderstood something perhaps. The scholars are included in the footnote, within the sources after Kia. Kia is mentioned alone (an "e.g." should be added though) to avoid a long list. Someone who read the article and didn't know about the discussion, could ask themselves: why are all these (reliable but not particularly known worldwide) scholars mentioned in the article? Why so many of them? Is everybody throwing in their name to get some advertise? The sentence actually says "Other 21st-century scholars, like Danişmend and Sevinç [did, in the 1970s and 1990s], also state that he was either an ethnic Greek or an ethnic Albanian (Kia, 2017)". I agree with deleting the parenthesis altogether, but in that case we should rephrase the bit to the extent of something like "The widespread view among 21st century scholars is that he was an Albanian or, less likely, a Greek," because that is what the widespread view is, and mine was an attempt not to be too clear in that respect, for the sake of those Serbian, Hungarian and Croatian readers who, probably wrongly bust still legitimately since we don't have a birth certificate and a an official statement by the subject, like to believe he was Croatian, Serbian or other things. I will repeat below why "origin" in these sources should be read as ethnical orgin, non geographical, the reason being that we have three sources speaking clearly of Greek or Albanian ethnicity, and none speaking of other ethnicities. Conversely, a larger number of sources speak of birth in Serbia (rather than Albania, a minority, but still existent, view).


 * I agree about Stavirides deletion from that sentence.


 * You: Source [20], exactly because it also speaks of Serbs as well, should be removed and mentioned indipendently with a quotation of what it says. there you go again. Even a quotation now!


 * You: He was followed by Mahmut Pasha and Gedik Ahmet Pasha of Greek and Croatian origin.", namely it gives a Croatian origin for him (the Greek pertains to Mahmut Pasha), and thus the source should be mentioned indipendently in a new sentence. I am 99% sure that he indeed means Gedik Pasha is Croatian. If we agree that that's what he actually says, then I think the source should be removed, like the one stating a least likely Serbian origin, because they represent one-sided opinions contrary to the widespread view. Yet, when the "Croatian source" is pointless if interpreted as meaning he was Croatian, the "Serbian one", it being apparent that Serbian is the less likely origin for the subject and that this source is the only one speaking of Serbian origin in a way that means ethnic origin (because Serbian origin is mentioned alongside Albanian and Greek, the widespread view for his ethnic origin), could still be used to further source the Albanian/Greek widespread belief. After all, that point is reinforced enough, and the source can be deleted as far as I'm concerned.


 * You are right about source[14].


 * Comment: I am pretty sure the book's page does mention that as well. I will delve into it or find another source. However, here we have just found a source more recent than the proposed Somel, Selçuk Akşin (2010), to be mentioned after it in the chronological order for his place of birth. For source[5] you are probably right, I will check that book to see if there is actually some statement in this respect.
 * Source[24] being there is a stupid mistake, the correct source is obviously source[25], the difference being simply the page number.
 * Source[24] being there is a stupid mistake, the correct source is obviously source[25], the difference being simply the page number.


 * Comment: You checked everything. You split hairs to make certain points, but didn't check this source. Check it. I won't add the relevant quote but I have checked the source, that book page, and that is exactly what it says. You: That part was included in my last edit and was removed for no reason. If it was me, it wasn't done on purpose. I apologize if it was me. Anyway: Some said that because he was of Albanian origin, he did not want to go against his fellows, while others said that he avoided the Iskodra Fortress because it was a difficult fortress to capture I don't see what different does it make? Let's add the full quote then.
 * Comment: You checked everything. You split hairs to make certain points, but didn't check this source. Check it. I won't add the relevant quote but I have checked the source, that book page, and that is exactly what it says. You: That part was included in my last edit and was removed for no reason. If it was me, it wasn't done on purpose. I apologize if it was me. Anyway: Some said that because he was of Albanian origin, he did not want to go against his fellows, while others said that he avoided the Iskodra Fortress because it was a difficult fortress to capture I don't see what different does it make? Let's add the full quote then.


 * You: Regarding the Ancestry/Ethnicity paragraph, let me close by saying the following. As you see, a main issue regarding it is the reuse of irrelevant sources, which also pertains to WP:CITEKILL. I also have to add, that there are additional sources supporting a Serbian ancestry. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] This brings me to another issue that will have to be addressed; do we make an independent mention of each source (i am referring to all, with their relevant years in parentheses), or group them together per 2010s and 21st century? The only irrelevant sources are in the brief passage that mentions that, corroborating the view that he was Albanian, is the fact he refused to fight the Albanians. That is separated and comes later from the point where the article report the widespread view of of Greek or Albanian ethnicity. It's not ancestry/ethnicity. It's ethnicity, in the sense that only ethnicity is mentioned in sources. Finkel, Caroline's (Gedik Ahmed Pasha, also of the Byzantine or Byzanto-Serbian nobility writing in 2012--thanks btw) which will be promptly added somewhere close to Lowry, only goes to show how Lowry should be read. As for the other sources, none of them speaks verbatim of ethnicity, a rather complex matter. They speak of a Serbian-born (Nahrawālī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ), something willingly stated differently from " a "Christian Serb who [...]" or a "Christian Serb born in [...]", precisely because his ethnicity is presumed to be Greek or Albanian. No one here, on the other hand, is denying that most agree that his place of birth was Serbia.


 * You: The infobox should also be more neutral. The "Ethnicity" parameter should ideally be listed as "Unknown" not at all. We know what his ethnicity ultimately was (Greek or Albanian), at least according to the accepted view (in fact, the only proposed one). We have two sources stating verbatim: "Ethnicity: Greek or Albanian". Not a single source speaks of Serbian ethnicity, in the infobox's parameter (ethnicity), around which revolves a section of the article, it must be reported clearly what the widespread view is, namely, that he was of Greek or Albanian ethnicity. The very fact that we have more than one reliable source is enough to report his Albanian or Greek ethnicity. On the other hand, it would be nice if we could get another source mentioning this Stojanovski, so that we may be sure of what we publish on Wikipedia.


 * No idea what removing un is, I was going to ask the same thing... I thought it was there from the beginning, but it might be due to some source-copy-paste-related mistake from my part. I agree. Let's remove citizenship and leave nationality.


 * Conclusion: I likewise urge you to assess the article again, and to solve the following issue: ethnicity shouldn't be removed again from the infobox, because it has multiple sources of univocal meaning. In addition, the other sources and their number support the statement that this is the widespread view, which should be hinted at (as it is now) or clearly stated in the article. The (less in number) sources that do not uphold Greek or Albanian ethnic origin, speak of origin in unclear terms, which all we have urges us to interpret as geographical terms. At best, some speak clearly of ownership of a fief, and infer membership in the local nobility. Caroline Finkel helps us to read Lowry properly, whose only doubt is whether this likely Byzantine Greek noble was a Palaiologos. Because only Albanian and Greek ethnicities are mentioned in scholarly sources--in addition to Kia's unmistakable (differently from sources passingly throwing in a "Serbian origin" or "Albanian origin"; i.e. is it geographical or ethnical origin?) "Gedik Ahmed was born in either a Greek or Albanian family and joined"-- while, for example, the Venetian traveller speaks of someone "born in Serbia". The Turkish encyclopedia states that he might have been born in Serbia, on the border with Kosovo, via the 1570 tahrir defter (written 100 years after his death and by the way, that's their and Stojanovski's own interpretation. Gazi Hüseyin Pasha had not finished conquering Heraklion when he proposed to build a mosque there. Now was he from there? Vranje is said to have been conquered by the Ottomans in 1455, when Gedik was a young commander. And the city might well have been named after him because he built a mosque there. That is one of the many details and considerations that led experienced authors like Brill's Stavrides to cautiously state that he was probably from Albania or Serbia. Islamapedia makes it clear that Vranje is a suggestion, a supposition based on the city's name and reinforced (though in fact it all might be caused) by the fact he built a mosque there. It is indeed possible, if not likely that he was born in Serbia (probably in southeastern Serbia on the border with Kosovo), and I will state clearly that it is apparent that that is the view held by the majority of scholars. Even though, differently from the ethnicity, where there is only one possible solution, here we actually have some claiming Albania as his place of birth, it should be hinted at in the article that it is more likely that he was from Serbia (which I believe already is). Stating that his ethnicity is "Unknown" would not be right, just like stating that his birthplace is Unknown.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't have this article in my watchlist, but I introduced the citation by Stojanovski. I think that all edits by Haldir should be removed. As a reader, I never liked wikipedia articles which listed what every author ever wrote about a subject's ethnicity. As editors, we have a responsibility to understand when an author has up-to-date bibliography and when older bibliography is reproduced. Stojanovski is the only archival research with a focus on the Balkans about Gedik Ahmed Pasha. All other sources reproduce generalizations.  Haldir wants to introduce new edits. They have to gain consensus. In my opinion, you can remove all new edits and we can continue a discussion about other sources.
 * Side comment: Islamapedia is not a reliable source.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Maleschreiber. By the way, you forgot to ping me as well! Anyway, now my doubts as regard Yugoslavian studies intensify again. Regardless of it, I am willing to trust Lowry and even include this possibility (that his father owned a fief in Serbia at an unknown time and that he built a mosque there for unknown reasons) in the article. Differently from you, I don't believe my edits should be removed, because if we did so we would be hiding the widespread view regarding his ethnicity (or in the most prejudiced mind, an existing position held by a considerable number of scholars). As a reader, I never liked articles stating lies or hiding information. Though I agree that the list should be removed, and simply switched with a sentence reading = "The widespread view is that he was of Greek or Albanian ethnicity." The ethnicity in the infobox, then, cannot possibly be removed unless someone comes around with a reliable source stating the subject "was of x ethnicity". In that case, we will add the other possible ethnicity to the infobox. Yes,we have to use our head. But if we are to trust Stojanovski, his ethnicity still isn't established, nor his place of birth or that he was a Serbian aristocrat (all things that, before my edits, were stated in the infobox, without a single source, there or elsewhere). Lowry (and I presume Stojanovski) do not comment about his ethnicity. Islamapedia (which you say is unreliable, but was used as source here before I edited) gives a slightly different account. They say the defter is dated 1570, but Lowry speaks of a 15th century one. I think it is unreasonable to give less credit to, e.g., Kia 2017 or Sevinç 1992 just because theirs are not 1985 "archival research with a focus on the Balkans about Gedik Ahmed Pasha". This because I trust them as scholars who knew about Stojanovski (Taktas, 2011, for example states: "Gedik Ahmet Pasha was probably Albanian, perhaps Greek, or even Serbian") and yet saw things differently, as regards ethnicity, from how maybe you do. There is, as of today, an univocal view about his ethnicity, and we should report it. Your, mine or any other Wikipedian's interpretation of data cannot have more weight than those scholars'. Unless, of course, you are a non-self published scholar. In that case, please publish something about his Serbian ethnicity and give us the link, so we can add it to the article.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I appreciate this little dose of rationality Maleschreiber. I agree with your approach and the need to pay closer attention to what bibliography presents and where it is based. Indeed, most authors that have been cited seem to reproduce generalizations. I don't have time to expand because i must leave in a few minutes, and i don't think that i need to expand, but i agree with you that ideally not every author should be listed independently in the article, but through a concise sentence summarizing all the different views, with an emphasis on Stojanovski's archival research as mentioned by Lowry. I did originally propose a more concise version in my first comment i left above, under the section Removal of certain parts from my addition, and only considered WP:INTEXT for the sake of consensus. But since there is another editor who agrees, then i also support avoiding a long text. The sources' year, and thus chronological order we used, is also irrelevant when there isn't any new evidence to back it up. I also agree with reverting the article back to the stable version, and discuss an appropriate summary of the aforementioned, with WP:ONUS in mind. Again, i don't think we need to expand. Something short would do, with only 4 or 5 relevant citations, per WP:CITEKILL. Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Demetrios1993, you forgot to ping me too! Perhaps I'm too irrational for this discussion, and my attempt to improve the article and offer a counterview was badly received.
 * I argue that an emphasis should be put on Lowry/Stojanovski when describing his possible places of birth, that his ethnicity (a Byzantine(/Serbian?) aristocratic, Greek, or Albanian), if it is to be mentioned at all, should be passingly cited in the article, and not included in the infobox. That was the ultimate result I though the dialogue would produce. I think that no matter what Stojanovski study says, speaking of ethnicity in such a place at such a time should be avoided. The reason I went at this article in the first place, is that I read "ethnicity" in an infobox and, at that, a following unsourced claim. I don't have time to continue working on this article, and if you want to revert everything to how it was (though I advise you not to mention ethnicity at all) it's fine, it's two against none, and you have all rights to do it.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Haldir Marchwarden, i thought you monitored your watchlist, hence why i didn't ping, nor do i generally ping users who are actively engaged in a discussion. For the time being, i self-rv my reinstatement of the stable version until a final agreement is reached. Personally, i don't see an issue with the removal of the "Ethnicity" parameter from the infobox and the use of only the "House" (Member of minor Serbian feudal family from the area of Vranje). As for the rest of the sources, again, as aforementioned i support a small summary of all the shared sources. Please do share a small summary, like one or two sentences, of what you think is appropriate. I would also like to read what Maleschreiber has to suggest as a summary, and then we can discuss them. Unfortunately i am about to leave and won't be able to respond until the morning. Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Demetrios1993, you just pinged Maleschreiber, as he did with you, but it's fine and no, I never mentioned my watchlist, though I did tell you "If you don't ping me, I won't know that you replied," which is what caused me to "leave" the discussion in the first place. It's not your fault, of course, because you didn't have to do to it. Like I said, I definitely leave the discussion. I realize that I'd be of more help to Wikipedia if I moved on to other articles now. I thought this article was much worse than it actually is when I first read "ethnicity" in the ib and consulted the wp:tr version. I gave everything I could and hopefully offered the strongest counterview. I trust you and Maleschreiber will do a good job here, and I hope the material I added may be of help to you with this or other articles. Enjoy your morning and have a nice day!--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ersin Özdil (2018). Elveda Otranto is a historical novel, it's not a publication intended to be used as a source for history. Is it ok with you if your edits are removed (temporarily)? We will examine them afterwards one by one but I don't feel that right now the article has been improved. I'm concerned about the fact that the readers will leave the article with the knowledge that Gedik Ahmed Pasha was against Ottoman attacks against Albania. But such a thing is not found in archival sources. It's written in the article as a fact, but it's literary device used in a novel.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging me and for your help with the article Maleschreiber. Unfortunately, I am focusing on other projects right now and I left the discussion. I am kind of busy now, yet I am willing to help if you really need some explanation (as regards the sources I provided) or more source-work for this article. However, I leave to you all decisions. So yes, it's fine; you can remove them, keep them, change them. Hope my work helped to build a valid counterpoint so you can get to something close to perfection. Have a nice day!--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the article was fine before, but certain improvements/additions can be made. Ideally we should remove the "Ethnicity" parameter from the Infobox – which has Serb – and leave only the "House" as aforementioned. We can also include the alternative names used in bibliography – in the lede – as i had but was removed (they are mentioned in the primary source Historia Turchesca that i added). A reference to Donado da Lezze's/Giovanni Maria Angiolello's (author of Historia Turchesca; authorship disputed) writings regarding his birthplace, after the sentence where it says that very little is known about him in primary sources, also fits well. After that we may include a small summary of the different claims that appear in bibliography regarding his ethnicity (citing only 4–5 relevant sources per WP:CITEKILL), and follow with Lowry's source concerning Stojanovski's archival research. Namely:

To work on this however, we first need to reinstate the old version, without the categories that were re-added, etc. Demetrios1993 (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)