Talk:Pashalik of Yanina

Albanian Pashaliks
Alexikoua, why did you delete two references with this edit ? user:sulmues--Sulmues 22:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I gave a proper summary. Were is your objection on this?Alexikoua (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

About the first reference you didn't give any explanation. About the second you said the source says that Yannina was an Albanian center of power during Ali, that's not the same +source replaced with english speaking that meets wp:verify) (undo)

Saying "Albanian Center of Power" clearly defines the Albanian Pashalik, and IT IS IN ENGLISH. In addition, if you have a wikified word, you don't have to go put, but just go to the wikified article and do your editing there. Am I wrong?user:sulmues--Sulmues 23:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the clear point, if a city was called an Albanian center of power this doesn't mean that the entire region is Albanian. Morevoer the source doesn't explain what kind of Albanian center was that (military, political, artistic?).

The second source you added doesn't meet wp:verify: History of Albanian People. Albanian Academy of Science. ISBN 9992716231. As you can see it's not in English too.Alexikoua (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You did not address my question. I am asking you why you wouldn't edit the Albanian Pashaliks article if that's what you think is incorrectly represented in Wikipedia. You might start renaming that article, but once that there is an article, you don't ask for citations in another linked one such as this. Do I make sense to you?user:sulmues--Sulmues 00:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Chekrezi is completely Unreliable, and Vickers not a medieval history expert.


1. ^ The Albanians: a modern history By Miranda Vickers page 18-19 I.B.Taurus 2006 ISBN:1860645419 ([1]) 2. ^ "Albania past and present" By Constantine Anastasi Chekrezi, The MacMillan Company New York 1919 p43 Megistias (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Knows Modern history, Vickers not a medieval historian.
 * Chekrezy is from 1919 and he is/was an Albanian nationalist.
 * Are you suggesting that I should delete all the material sourced Sakeralliu because he was a greek nationalist? In addition Miranda Vickers has co-written the book with James Pettifer, who is a history Professor. --sulmues (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Says who? Athenean (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * First explain why Chekrezi would be an Albanian nationalist. He was a scholar from Harvard. Second explain why would be Sakeralliu, a Greek better than Pettifer, a non Greek. --sulmues (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is Cherkezi a nationalist? Do I really need to explain that to you?  Here's a review from the American Historical Review.  .  If you don't have access to JSTOR I can e-mail it to you.  Now stop pretending like you don't know (explain why Cherkezi is a nationalist) and find something constructive to do. Athenean (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You brought a review from Ferdinand Schevill. So you would accept this author for the review to Chekrezi, but when he says that the Albanian is the new form of Illyrian, I bet you wouldn't right ( page 34)? You just failed to explain why Sakeralliu, a Greek, is a better source than Chekrezi, and you also failed to explain why Pettifer is not better than Sakeralliu. Can you address my questions fully? --sulmues (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you try to understand that an author's nationality has nothing to do with how reliable they are? Sakellariou is not an unreliable source just because he happens to be Greek.  If you can't understand that, I don't have to address any of your questions.  Athenean (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sakellariou is perfectly reliable and acceptable. He has been discussed in the past and has been used in many articles. Please restore this, diff.Megistias (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Chekrezi and Vickers won't do of course. There are many modern specialized historians dealing with this particular eras 1430-1787 .Megistias (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You fail to respond to my questions. --sulmues (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You fail to understand that a 1919 source is outdated, your questions have been answered, denying does recreate an argument.Megistias (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the reference used for the intro "Albania and the surrounding world: papers from the British-Albanian Colloquium, South East European Studies Association held at Pembroke College, Cambridge, 29th-31st March, 1994"Megistias (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You still have to explain to me why a Greek historian (Sakeralliu) is superior per wp:rs to James Pettifer (UK) to explain the history of Albania in the English Wikipedia. You keep saying Vickers, but the book was written with four hands. Pettifer is a history professor. And also would you accept Kristo Frasheri (Albanian academic), if we accept your Sakeralliu? --sulmues (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats not the weigh this works, its not about "scales". James Pettifer specializes in modern affairs, as does Vickers. See Pettifer's publications. Use modern appropriate sources specializing with the issue at hand. This era from the 15th to th 18th century is not hideen from the eyes of scholars. It should be easy within the next few days to reference the article with proper academic sources.Megistias (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Name
Takabeg (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Pashalik of Yanina" -Llc 14, but all of them are very old.
 * "Pashalik of Janina" -Llc 34, but most of all sources are very old.
 * "Pashalik of Ioannina" -Llc 18, but most of all sources are very old.
 * "Pashalik of Yannina" -Llc 11, but most of sources are very old.
 * 8, but most of all sources are very old.
 * Remember to go through alternate forms like "Yanina Pashalik," "Pashaluk of Yanina," &c. (Although in this case, hardly matters since they produce 0 hits.) "Eyalet of Yanina" produces 10, though; "Janina" 16. — LlywelynII  15:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Date
Seems too early for formation of an eyalet. Sanjak, maybe? — LlywelynII  15:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Pashalik or eyalet?
From the Wikipedia article Pasha: "If a Pasha governed a provincial territory, it could be called a pashaluk after his military title, besides the administrative term for the type of jurisdiction, e.g. eyalet, vilayet/walayah." So apparently one designation doesn't exclude the other.--LK (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We have confusing situation with Ioannina. There is overlap of Pashalik of Yanina with content of other the articles.
 * I think that in case of this administrative unit (Pashalik of Yanina) it is obvious that it was not established in 1430, because Yanina was part of Rumelia Eyalet in period 1430—1670. Ioannina Eyalet was established in 1670 and existed until 1788 when Ali Pasha gained control over Ioannina. Probably because of him this administrative unit composed of Sanjak of Ioannina and Sanjak of Tirhala was called Pashalik of Yanina. But after Ali Pasha was killed in 1822 the text of the article says: "the pashalik ceased to exist".
 * If I am right, we should have following chronology:
 * Sanjak of Ioannina. This is only administrative unit which existed in all period 1430—1913. All other Ottoman administrative units were established and disestablished, but sanjak existed for almost 500 years. In period 1430-1670 it was part of Eyalet of Rumelia. In period 1670-1788 it was part of Eyalet of Ioannina. In period 1788-1822 it was part of Pashalik of Yanina. It was part of Janina Vilayet in period 1867-1913.
 * Eyalet of Ioannina. This eyalet was composed of sanjak of Ioannina and Sanjak of Berat.
 * Pashalik of Yanina. This is probably the most appropriate name for the entity controlled by Ali Pasha. It existed in period 1788—1822. In case there was another Ottoman administrator, besides Ali Pasha, who had pasha title, then sanjak, eyalet or vilayet could be referred to as "Pashalik of Yanina", but only to explain that it is administrative unit which is ruled by pasha, not because its official name is Pashalik of Yanina.
 * Janina Vilayet which existed in period 1867-1913.
 * If I am right, then we should:


 * 1) create separate article Eyalet of Ioannina (which is now redirecting to Pashalik of Yanina) and
 * 2) remove all parts connected with sanjak, eyalet or vilayet from the article about Pashalik of Yanina.
 * Am I right? Please comment.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed you are, I think it should be done.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Requestor asked to make split Op47 (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will try to make split now. After I complete it I will write a message here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a split. The article about sanjak already existed, so I only needed to create the article aobut Ioannina Eyalet.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ThankyouOp47 (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Banner of Pashalik of Ioannina based on Ali Pasha's medalion.png

Selective removal of Fleming
Fleming is extensively used in the article, I see no reason why her statement about the demographics in the pashalik should not be mentioned. I also provided a quote in order to avoid further disruptive removals.Alexikoua (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Fleming is the top source on this topic, an in depth scholarly biopic on Ali Pasha. The pashalik covered most of mainland Greece (except the Arvanitic areas), and small part of Albania, it stands to reason Greeks were the majority. And I'm pretty sure those users edit-warring to remove the info would be doing the exact opposite if Fleming said that Albanians were the majority. Khirurg (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Greek majority statement is not contradicted by any other author. On the other hand the use of 'Albania' in western correspondence was not widespread (the local French concul never used it) but this abstract term is still in lead.Alexikoua (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I see that both of you are agin, like usual, edit-warring. However, there is absolutely no guideline that says that the majority ethnic group of an entity should be mentioned in the very lead of the article. This is never done and won't be added using brute-force tactics. Nishjan (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As reported by Hoxha (2007), also Albanians formed a majority in the Pashalik (in central and southern Albania and western North Macedonia they were a compact group, in Greece they were a large minority group). Howard (2017) specifically reports that Greek-speakers formed the large majority in central Greece and the Morea. Hoxha (2007) reports that the single available source for the demography of Ali's domain is from the French author Bessier (translation from Albanian): Those details are undue for the lede, IMHO the wording used by Papageorgiou (2014) is sufficient:  – Βατο (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * An obscure source like Hoxha is not on the same level as Fleming, and Howard is a generalist history of the Ottoman Empire, so again not on the same level. It is not possible for two groups to form the majority. By definition, only one group can be in the majority, so also Albanians formed a majority is sheer nonsense. Let alone that even Hoxha doesn't use the word "majority". Khirurg (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Per NPOV neither source should be used in this case. Alltan (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hoxha actually provides exact numbers that were recorded by Bessier specifically for the territory under Ali's rule. Hoxha actually does use the word majority: . Fleming on the other hand does not provide a correct analysis based on numbers specifically for Ali's territory. She only states: Dakin's estimates are about religion not about ethnicities, and it clearly contrasts with Bessier's specific report about the Pashalik of Yanina . As can be seen, for this subject Fleming is not a more specific source than Hoxha, Papageorgiou and Howard. Also Papageorgiou (2014), like Hoxha (2007), states: "On the size of Ali's territories and its population, see, J, Bessieres, Mémoire sur la vie et la puissance d’Ali-Pasha, Vezir de Yanina, Paris 1820, p. 24." Fleming does not even use this important primary source, which appears to be the most specific one for the demography of Ali's territories. – Βατο (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fleming is the top source on the subject, and you have used her extensively when it suited you. It's just that in this particular instance she is inconvenient, hence the complicated explications. Hoxha's "exact numbers" have nothing to do with the actual numbers of Greeks and Albanians. Ali's territories consisted of the northern Peloponnese (almost entirely Greek), central Greece (almost entirely Greek), Thessaly (mostly Greek), southern Epirus (mostly Greek). The only areas that weren't mostly Greek were northern Epirus/southern Albania. None of the sources you have presented contradict Fleming. Khirurg (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * where do you get that northern Peloponnese and central Greece were almost entirely Greek, Thessaly and southern Epirus being mostly Greek from? Durraz0 (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * On page 157, Fleming states Ali's subjects - the vast majority of whom were Greeks. Top source, unambiguously stating it as clearly as possible, and yet still. Yup. Khirurg (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That simple, I don't know why a small group of editors creates so disruption on a statement that's not contradicted by other authors.Alexikoua (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fleming (2014) is just one of the sources provided, and it is not more detailed than the orthers. And the most comprehensive primary source, Bessier, which is used by secondary sources (Papageorgiou (2014) and Hoxha (2007)) for this specific subject, certainly has more weight than suggestions that are not based on actual data. The article should include relevant geographic context analysed by the sources, otherwise the content is misleading. But it should be included in the article's body, in the lede it is WP:UNDUE. – Βατο (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not undue at all, it's WP:JDL. A brief statement of the Pashalik's demographics is not undue at all. None of the sources you have brought contradict Fleming's statement. Do you actually disagree with the statement? Are you saying Greeks were not the vast majority? Khirurg (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with what all reliable sources state. "A brief statement of the Pashalik's demographics" needs the relevant geographical context as per the sources, otherwise it is misleading POV-pushing. The geographical context could be added into the article's body. For the lede that information is undue, not to mention that "vast majority" is inappropriate in this case, because it means that other ethnic groups were irrelevant in size, which is inaccurate. Also, Bessier's numbers reported by Hoxha are to be included as well, because they are so far the only primary report, although about religious demography, specifically about Ali's domains. The general suggestion provided by Fleming, who in her publication provides only the religious (Greek and Turk) demographic estimates, should be properly attributed. Also Hoxha's suggestion, based on Bessier's religious demographic numbers and other estimates, should be properly attributed. Your opinion labelling sources that you don't like as "obscure" is completely irrelevant. Hoxha's paper has been published also in this Bulgarian prestigious journal: Исторически преглед / Istoricheski pregled. So this source will be treated with the same weight as Fleming's publication. – Βατο (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither Bessie nor Hoxha contradict Fleming. The lede already includes plenty of "context", from describing in wikivoice the Pashalik as "Albania", to listing all the ethnicities of the Pashalik. What would be "misleading POV" is to not mention that one of these ethnicities was the vast majority, just because the some users don't like it. What is misleading is listing all of the ethnicities in alphabetical order, without any additional clarification, in which case most users would assume that the ethnicity listed first is the most numerous. Could it be that's why you are so incredibly insistent on mentioning a neutral, well-sourced fact in the lede? Khirurg (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Speaking with my admin hat on: neither the inclusion nor exclusion of the disputed content is likely to be drastic enough a flaw in this article that edit warring is necessary. Please resolve the dispute here or seek outside input (via e.g. WP:RFC or WP:DRN). I've fully protected the article for two days, and I'll be glad to unprotect it if consensus develops sooner than that (please ping me). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with the admin. A note to all involved parties: if they agree to take the dispute to DRN or open a RFC, then they should bear in mind that the dispute resolution reflects on sources and the rationale. The standard practice in Wikipedia for multi-ethnic entities/polities, is to mention the majorities before everything else, as is the case of Belgium; the Balkan topic area editors however may look at North Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina instead which are more familiar cases to them. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 02:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The edit war resumed very soon after the protection ended. I just re-applied it for one week. Please use this time to develop local consensus or seek outside input. Edit warring after the protection expires is likely to lead to a sanction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I took a look at this dispute. I reworded the disputed part, since the sources only agree that the Orthodox Christians were the largest religious group. Fleming says that Greeks were a vast majority, while Hoxha cites Bessier saying that the Orthodox (Greek and Albanians; Hoxha should have mentioned at least Aromanians too) were more numerous than Muslims. The figures provided show a slight difference though, so one can't write in the lede "Greeks were a vast majority". I think that Greeks were more numerous than Albanians (most of Ali' territories were deep in what is today Greece), however that is better discussed in the body of the article where various authors can be contrasted to each other (Fleming, Hoxha, whoever else). Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You removed Fleming on the statement about Greek majority nevertheless he is not contested. As you said Ali's Greek territories comprised the majority of his domains.Alexikoua (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ktrimi's rewording, it is neutral and solves Khirurg's concern about the listing of the ethnicities, which by including firstly Greeks is no more potentially misleading. As for Alexikoua's addition by selecting one source based on some religious estimates about mainland Greece and not about the subject of this article, it has WP:NPOV issues because other sources provide different, and more detailed information. The information should be expanded and clarified into a relevant section in the article's body. – Βατο (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And I do not agree with that wording and am glad it's gone. It's an incontrovertible fact that Greeks were the majority in the Pashalik, and this needs to be clearly stated. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if Albanians were the majority, this would probably be mentioned in the opening paragraph of the lede, and several times throughout the article. Demographic information is absolutely lede-worthy, and we're not going to hide the facts because some users find them inconvenient. Khirurg (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead POV about conteporary geographic definitions
There have been various descriptions of Ali's territories, Puqueville, Psalidas (Ali's secretary), various contemporary works andgeographers, provided diferrent views on this. Neutrality should be achieved on this part while there was not any official mention of 'Albania' (just an exonym by selective western correspondence).Alexikoua (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with "conteporary geographic definitions", it concerns Ali Pasha's own definition of his increasingly independent political entity and its name used in Ali's diplomatic correspondence and western correspondence, an information provided by reliable secondary sources. – Βατο (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with Bato. AlexBachmann (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not lede material, per WP:UNDUE. It's a cherry picked detail. It is extremely ironic that the user that do not want inconvenient demographic information in the lede, but instead want "diplomatic correspondence". Khirurg (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Apart from the cherry picked detail in lead, there is also the chery picked information in legacy section: everything related to Greek national movement being removed. For future reference Ali's history concerns the 30 last years prior to Greek revolution not Albanian revolution. As such a neutral presentation of the legacy section should begin with the connection and link to that event.Alexikoua (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Some editors have to accept the historical fact that Ali Pasha called his autonomous domain "Albania", whether they like it or not. It is sourced with reliable secondary sources. It is documented in Ali Pasha's diplomatic correspondence and western correspondence, and it was the official name recognized by Britain when the British "General Council in the Morea and Albania" was established in 1803. It is clearly lede material. The demography of the pashalik is a different matter, and the discussion concerning it is in the section above. – Βατο (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Revert
This revert by Alexikoua is unexplained and very concerning as the summary "rv disruption" is inaccurate in all possible ways. Alexikoua removed information which I had added from the article's sources and changed two sentences which don't fundamentally disagree with each other to something which isn't discussed in the sources. I've added the relevant quotes from each source and Alexikoua shouldn't put forward such reverts again.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Information about post-mid 19th century demographics is completely irrelevant here since the Pashalik ceased to exist in 1822.Alexikoua (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also this edit by Maleschreiber [] is inaccurate since Anemodoura never states that Albanians were the dominant population, she states something else (that the region was mainly inhabited by Greeks, Albanians and Aromanians), and she also never states something about "a small number of Greeks". That's source manipulation. Maleschreiber should avoid this kind of editing and read the cited material carefully, without promoting specific authors against others (in this case Hoxha against a more recent source, Anemodoura).Alexikoua (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Anemodoura states that Greek-speakers lived in villages of Dropull and Himara in southern Albania. This is not in contradiction with Hoxha's statement about small groups of Greeks. It's the same statement or do you think that Greek-speakers being concentrated in Dropull can refer to anything more than small groups?--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't address why you added mid-19th century information on this article. I assume that you agree that the Pashalik ceased to exist at 1822 and as such any information about mid-19th century demographics needs to be removed as irrelevant.Alexikoua (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

This article is now under the consensus-required restriction
I've placed this article under the consensus-required restriction. Any edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on this talk page. If more input is needed to reach consensus, please consider the advice at WP:Dispute resolution. The explanatory essay WP:Consensus required has more information about the restriction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Since I applied the restriction:
 * removed content in two consecutive edits,
 * added content in one edit,
 * challenged both of the above via reversion in two consecutive edits.
 * challenged the IP's addition via reversion in one edit
 * and challenged Tsepolovitis' removal in this revert.
 * No one should re-do the removal of Tsepelovitis or the addition of the IP unless there is affirmative talk page consensus. I understand that some of the content under dispute in this sequence has historically been disputed. I urge the many good-faith and capable editors here not to try and find which prior version is the right one. Any such effort would be better spent on seeking a new consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC) striking and inserting 01:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not challenge TA's edits. Khirurg reverted TA, I reverted the IP because they added unrealted, unsourced content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the correction. Fixed via striking and inserting above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * if the interested editors were not able to find an agreement between them after a month of dispute, the only way to proceed is an RfC. If they are still interested in the content dispute, ofc. Not a big deal. What really concerns me, to be frank, is your reading of the rules and use of admin tools to intervene in the content dispute. You protected the version of the article supported by a side of the dispute twice, and imposed a new rule that effectively protects that version of the article for a third time. Yeah, WP:WRONGVERSION but nowhere does it say that an admin can use his tools thrice to impose/protect the same version supported by one of the parties. What if someone reverts to the other version? Will you block them and then revert to this version? What if the reverting cycle continues, will you block both sides or only those reverting to the other version? I know being an admin dealing with Balkan disputes is quite hard and time-consuming, but you should probably give more thought to this. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being frank with me. I'm looking into the article history right now and will get back to you soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Though I haven't protected the "same version", I take your point, as each of my restricitons/protections were imposed at a point where the "vast majority" line was in the lead. I know that's a major point of contention. This was not at all intentional on my part, I wasn't aware of that until you brought it up, and I doubt I could form a preference without a few days worth of additional reading. I can understand if this looks either motivated or capricious to you, and I'm sorry about that.
 * I do intend to block editors that add/remove any content that has been challenged by reversion. I don't intend to do any reverting myself (unless of vandalism, etc.). I am not the only admin who can enforce the restriction, so anyone who thinks my interpretation is wrong, or that my intervention is untimely, can seek enforcement at WP:AE.
 * You mention an RfC, which would be fine. You might also consider WP:DRN, a noticeboard like WP:NPOVN, or seeking input from both the tagged WikiProjects. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I never put your good faith and neutrality into question. Your recent RfA is the proof that the community trusts you. I will not seek input at AE because this is not a big issue: better to either open an RfC or just move on. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it! Both of those are good options. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We've already had one violation, and I implemented a temporary partial block of that user. Please be cautious while editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have this article on my watchlist and I took a look at the dispute's history. I agree with Ktrimi991 that this should be solved through an RfC. However, I do not understand how you, an admin who claims to be neutral, have used the admin tools thrice to protect or impose the version supported by one party. Why did you block one party for reverting, but did not block the other party as well ? Can you cite another admin who has acted in a similar way in a similar situation? Alltan (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . Please see Contentious topics, which says "Edits that breach an editor or page restriction may be reverted." My interpretation is that Khirurg's revert was covered by that exemption. I'll reiterate that any admin, not just me, is permitted to sanction editors who breach the restriction. If you feel I've missed one, you might report such editors to WP:AE.
 * Yes, I can cite another admin who has sanctioned an editor who breaches CT restrictions and not the editor who undoes the breaching edit. For example, an admin blocked a user for this edit, which violated a consensus-required restriction. They did not sanction the user who reverted the violation (in this edit). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * the edit here has been challenged for a long time (hence the 2 page protections), way before you imposed the restriction so you can't call a revert an "exemption". Both editors breached the restriction, so both should be responsible, not only one. In the example you cite above, the restriction was imposed on the article way before the edit was challenged. So in that case the challenging editor had the right to revert, in this case not. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've never seen a bidirectional consensus-required restriction, where both addition of and removal of a given piece of content are sanctionable. Could you provide an example? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * if it is not bidirectional, then you blocked the wrong editor. The dispute started when that content was added to the lede for the first time a month ago, and it was immediately challenged. So those who are readding challenged content without consensus is the other party, not the editor who you blocked. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Page restrictions do not apply retroactively. It is the status quo at the time of the restriction that matters. The material had been stable in the article for over a month until 2 days ago when a user whose behavior you never mention reignited the dispute by removing it. This seems like an attempt to overturn the fact that the WP:WRONG version was restricted. Khirurg (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The first time the content was challenged since the restriction was placed was when Khirurg challenged Tsepelovitis Alvanitis. I think a straightforward interpretation of the sanction is that it applies to editing that post-dates its establishment. Any admin is free to interpret it otherwise, and sanction editors based on challenges that happened prior to 17:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC). I am unlikely to do so, but it wouldn't be unreasonable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * is it a coincidance that you protected the article with the same version twice? Is it also a coincidance that you imposed the restriction after the same party had readded its version again? And after that you blocked only an editor who opposed the version you protected/imposed thrice by coincidance? So who reverts the version you have protected gets blocked, who readds it does not? What kind of neutrality is this? Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * When Khirurg posted the request for protection, the disputed lead line was present in the article. It was not removed before I protected the page, and it would have been inappropriate for me to revert Khirurg before applying protection (it did not occur to me to do so).
 * Since then, yes, I have twice "protected" versions that include that disputed lead line, if you count the consensus-required restriction. I am having a hard time seeing this as remarkably coincidental, but I absolutely feel for those who do. Having been on the other end of the mop, I have certainly felt frustrated that a non-preferred version was protected. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * the issue here is not that you made a page protection with the a party's version ("wrong version"). I would be dumb to complain about that. The issue is that you have used your admin tools too much in a way that favours a party's version. After protecting that version twice, you brought up a rule that again favours it. Then when the reverting cycle continued, you blocked only an editor who opposed that version and allowed the other party to keep reverting. I have had disagreements with other admins in the past and I respect their stance, but I have never seen such a case when an admin practically imposes a version which never achieved concensus on the tp with page protections, new restrictions and a block. Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you say there's more to your concern than ["wrong version"] + ["this admin keeps imposing the same version"]? I don't think I have more to say about those two parts, and I can understand how reasonable editors could react to what I've said with either disappointment and disbelief. I doubt more words from me will help. If there is more to your concern, please share it, and I'll do my best to address what is shared. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This energy would be better spent on writing up a neutrally worded RFC to address the content issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * or better let the article as is, as a testament of a version which was favoured by every possible admin tool. The new guy who got blocked for making less reverts than the other party will have his mark there, the RfC will not undo it. Anyways, it is not really his mark; it is the mark of inequality. In a case where people are not treated equally, one better moves on and lets the admin protect that version of the article forever with his rules and block warnings. The issue is not 2 sentences in the article of a guy who died more than 150 years ago. It is how an admin handles a content dispute. I have had disputes with several admins in the past, and I really do not blame them for anything: at least in some cases I was wrong. But in this case, frankly speaking, I am so disappointed as I would prefer stop editing Wikipedia rather than have to interact with that admin again. Everything has its limits, people here are volunteers who are not obliged to be treated with double standards. Blocking only the party that disagrees with the version that the admin protected thrice is too much. Ktrimi991 (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The editor that was blocked violated the sanction. Simple as that. WP:WRONG VERSION exists for this reason. Form a consensus that the article should change, and it will. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A sanction that arbitrarily says that: if this party reverts it will get blocked, while the other party is free to revert as much as they want. My advice to the other editors stands: let the article be with that version. It is just a waste of time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ARCA is the noticeboard to request changes to the standard set of WP:CTOP remedies. This remedy is used on many articles however, so I don't think there's much chance of it being changed. Your best bet is probably to determine what the consensus version is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The AE restriction is OK, the way that admin applied it is not. The restriction says that the article should not be changed without consensus on the talk page. Whoever readds disputed content might be sanctioned. The dispute started when that content was added to the lede for the first time a month ago, and it was immediately challenged. The admin did not block anyone who kept adding the new content that does not have consensus; the admin blocked a newbie who removed that new content. So the admin is saying: "If X adds new content, Y will be blocked if they remove the content without X's agreement. If X keeps reverting, the admin will not block X as well". An RfC is rendered rather pointless because, based on that admin's "rule", if the RfC is closed as "No consensus", then the new content will stay in the article. Normally when an RfC is closed as "No consensus", then the new content is kept out of the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, I would not say that about a hypothetical "no consensus" close. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Sheikh Hasina provides an example of how this works out. The consensus required is to stop the edit warring. Once an RFC is run, the result can be handled from there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * A problem with that is circumvention through burner accounts (such as this "newbie" that appears to be some kind of WP:SPA that is already familiar with what blocking is and how it works   - and I'm not the only one who found it suspicious ) or IPs. What I'm seeing here is one party attempting to overturn something they don't like through badgering the admins on the talkpage, rather than consensus-seeking through discussion about the content. Khirurg (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you show how this version represents the consensus version of the lead? I can't see anywhere in the article history or talkpage discussion that this gained any sort of consensus besides the editors who were adding/reverting it back. If it did then yes consensus-seeking through discussion is necessary and it should be initiated by the editors who want to change the article. I didn't get involved in this dispute because it's another typically pointless dispute which could have been solved quickly if everybody tried to be slightly less maximalist in their activity but I don't think that it's doing anyone a favor - regardless of the "side" they're on in this particular dispute - if it remains "solved" in this state, in this manner.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * oh please. An RfC close as "No consensus" can't return the article to its pre-dispute version because that admin's rule prohibits that. That admin decided that the pre-dispute version can be returned only through affirmative consensus. Thus the admin with that rule counters with WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. The pre-dispute version does not contain in the lede the content the admin has been protecting for a month. Furthermore, the page protection and the rule have kept the new, disputed content in the article for a month, and messy Balkan RfCs tend to be closed ~2 months after being opened. Some closers who close as "No consensus" do take a 3 months period as cementing the disputed content as a new "stable version". It has happened before in Yugoslavia disputes. RfC closers rarely tend to challenge admins, even if they are obviously wrong.
 * Hence my suggestion to other editors to not waste time and leave the version imposed through admin tools stay. The new rule is so arbitrary that it is quite likely to turn an RfC into an arbitrary farce. This is my last comment here, I have better things to do than keep arguing here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Btw if it has not been clear enough, I am not interested in the content dispute. I can live with whatever this article says or does not say. My concern is how an admin (who became an admin just a month ago) repeatedly uses admin tools in this content dispute. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: Nothing to add to what the administrators have said, but bring WP:BADGER to everyone's attention, since none seems to have wiki-linked it so far. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 14:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I didn't get involved in the original dispute because I thought that all involved editors would eventually find a quite obvious and reasonable middle ground which represents the consensus in bibliography, but apparently this didn't happen. If there is a consensus version, then editors who want to change it have to seek a new consensus and administrative action should be taken if there are attempts to do so via edit-warring, and not broad consensus forming methods. But there is no consensus version in the article. The version of the lead which has been protected via administrative action as if it represents the consensus version was first added on July 13 and it was immediately challenged and editors who wanted to add it edit-warred to do so because they couldn't get any consensus for this addition . Finally, after a slow edit-war in the following days you stepped in a protected the article on July 20.
 * There is no wrong version to be protected and it just happened to be the version which was present in the article when you protected it as it had been reverted back to the article a few hours before the protection . In fact, the current version is not even the one which was the subject of the dispute but a slightly changed variant by the original editor who added it. This means that the current version of the lead hasn't even been proposed as part of any talkpage discussion.
 * The placement of the article under the consensus-required restriction might be a positive step but its starting point can't be the de facto recognition of a version which has not gained any consensus as the "stable", pre-edit-war, consensus-based version. It doesn't represent any consensus, but simply the last version of an edit-war which was first added on July 13 and which you protected on July 20. Such an application of relevant policies simply treats edits which have never gained consensus by the majority of editors as if they are the consensus via administrative action. And it incentivizes the opposite of consensus seeking as editors can simply block all edits even if there is nothing which stops their addition in terms of WP:RS. Hence I have reservations the feasibility of the application of this restriction if it runs against core policies.
 * If there is an application of a consensus-required restriction measure then the disputed lead should be reverted back to the last consensus-based version of the lead which existed before all edit-wars: . I think that if this isn't solved then it sets a quite problematic precedent in how Balkan topic area disputes are treated because the final "lesson" that experienced editors will learn here is that if you manage to get your preferred version to be the last one before full protection and another restriction is imposed, then your version effectively becomes the consensus which others have to overturn. The Balkan topic area definitely doesn't need such a lesson. No version which didn't gain a consensus can be treated as such by asking editors who originally disputed it to file a discussion at RfC in order to seek consensus for changes of something which itself isn't the result of consensus. I think that this is what some comments highlight and it's a legitimate concern IMO. We can also ask for third-party input from experienced admins in the Balkan topic area, there are many of them active and could help find the best solution.
 * Side comment (to all involved editors): If all editors didn't ask for a maximalist version of specific POVs to represent the lead section, then this could have been solved by stating which groups were the majority in which area or by using a statement which is agreed by all sources --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence that was added to the lede is a a succinct, well-sourced, factual statement. What happened next was a group of users that shares the same POV immediately tried to suppress it by edit-warring. Now, these same users are complaining that the WP:WRONG version was protected and want the clock turned back to their preferred version, with the restriction applied retroactively (an absurd demand). That's the gist of it, behind all the verbose obfuscation. Furthermore, the current version ("Greeks were most numerous ethnic group") is not maxmialist at all, but already heavily watered down from what the source says ("Greeks were the vast majority). So, the current version of the lede already represents a compromise. What is "maximalist" is the desire to completely remove this factual statement from the lede. As for your proposal, it is factually incorrect, as Albanians formed a majority only in the the northwest part of the Pashalik. In the northeast, the region of Macedonia, Albanians were very few. Khirurg (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Maleschreiber, parts of your concern I addressed above, and I'm still not thinking that restating my points will be helpful. I do want to address a few points. First, there's the idea that the consensus-required restriction has established a "consensus version". This is not the case. At this point, neither the exclusion or the inclusion of the disputed lead line has consensus. Someone needs to follow the steps of dispute resolution in order to establish such a consensus. Second, I will not consider the idea of seeking out some prior version of the article to enshrine as the "consensus version". This would entail an amount of engagement in the content dispute that I'm unwilling to approach. Finally, your idea of seeking out additional admin input is a good one, and I'd welcome more voices (not just admins). Please ensure any such outreach is done neutrally and in compliance with WP:CANVASS. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If an edit doesn't have consensus for inclusion, then its inclusion can't be protected via administrative action. This is the key problem with the restriction which was established because if this edit - which doesn't have consensus for inclusion - is removed then it's a blockable activity per the rationale which you established. The restriction against any activity which concerns the removal of this edit makes it de facto the established version - not via consensus, but via administrative action which protects it. I have filed many discussions at RfC and I have been part of almost all debates which have ended old disputes in the Balkan topic area. Despite the many difficulties in such debates, all experienced editors have managed eventually to find a middle ground, but this dispute resolution requires that the starting point of the debate is on neutral ground. In this case, the starting point is that a specific POV which has not gained consensus will remain in the live version and all editors who disagree with its inclusion which occurred via edit-war have to find consensus for its exclusion, but nobody has to gain consensus for inclusion because it is already the live version. The editors who want its inclusion are not required to do anything at all. All they have to do is to continue reverting it back and rely on the revert restriction which was established to maintain it via blocking all others who disagree with its inclusion every time it is removed. And this is exactly what is happening and will continue to happen unless you allow at least for it to be tagged ("dubious-discuss") to incentivize discussion without other editors reverting even tagging of this particular sentence. I understand that you wanted to stop slow edit-warring with this restriction and promote consensus seeking debate but there are inherent contradictions in its application which have the opposite result of what might have been originally intended.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on tagging the content. On the rest: I repeat that I am not going to dig for some "neutral version". All of these words would have been better spent on seeking consensus on the content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not involved in this content dispute, but I find it worrying that an admin does not reflect on their judgement after multiple non-involved editors have called for them to do so. I was preparing to add two new reliably-sourced paragraphs to the history section of the article, but I am hesitant to do so due to the new “conditions” placed on the article that favour a certain group of editors over another. The way you handled this simple content dispute is driving long-term editors away. We both know that an admin has other ways to stop edit-warring.
 * Imposing new, disputed content as a version which needs "affirmative consensus" to be removed is far from the spirit of core policies such as WP:ONUS - there are a number of sources that challenge the specific POV you have aided in establishing within the article. Additionally, blocking a new editor for making a revert whilst the other participants are allowed to revert freely does not seem to be the most balanced way to handle the situation at hand. Surely you can see how you are losing the confidence of editors in this topic area; I have no doubt that it is not easy being an administrator in the Balkan topic area, but this simply isn’t the way to go. Botushali (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Botushali. Please feel free to add your reliably-sourced paragraphs. The restriction does not prevent you from doing so—unless the content includes any of the material added in this edit, later challenged, which is doubtful. If your addition is reverted, you should not re-add it without talk page consensus. The rest of your comments are of a type that I've previously addressed, and it would not help for me to repeat myself. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So in that case, if I add content which I know some editors will want removed despite it being reliably sourced, all they have to do is revert and then prevent it from being re-added via the restriction? It will force both parties into a conversation that will devolve into an endless cycle of pointless discussion which happens in many content disputes in the Balkan topic area. That would be unproductive and ineffective towards the article’s improvement. Botushali (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The point of the restriction is to force conversation. If it's true that discussions in this topic area are endless/pointless/unproductive/ineffective, then more dispute resolution is needed. Not more reverting. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Conversation is not promoted when a specific version which exists solely because of edit-warring in a content dispute is in fact being effectively treated as the established version of the article because nobody can actually remove it or when the same restriction allows everyone to just revert back any addition which they don't like. This is what happened in practice with the restriction which you established and it didn't promote conversation. In fact, talkpage discussion has moved to a point where the only discussion right now involves this restriction, while editors who have their preferred version of the lead be the live version have no incentive to have any sort of discussion to find a middle ground. It is not true at all that discussions in this topic area are endless/pointless. They are difficult and time-consuming but they always get somewhere and they produce a status quo which everyone eventually respects and doesn't edit-war to change it. This process has produced high stability and productive work. But it is required to have an incentive to have a discussion in the first place and the belief among all editors involved that the starting ground is neutral. In this case, there is no discussion because all editors know that if someone doesn't like a new edit they can just remove it and invoke your restriction or they can invoke it to protect their preferred version of the lead. Thus, there is no incentive for discussion and most involved editors don't consider the starting ground neutral because a specific version which is the product of edit-warring is being permanently protected from removal. You might have expected differently when you decided to act in this manner, but the end result is definitely counterproductive as before the restriction there was at least some form of discussion about what should matter: content. I hope this explains why the restriction didn't work as intended and if a decision doesn't work, then it should be changed. --Maleschreiber (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

demographics
Can we verify the interpretation of demographics based off of other what other sources and numbers or giving us? The demographics for pashalik of Yanina is contested. Demographics are disputed and should be as they are Tsepelovitis Alvanitis (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The material you are removing is sourced to a high quality source that is viewable online, and a quote is provided. It is thus very easy for you to verify it. Khirurg (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, per the consensus-required restriction which the article is currently is under (see above), and which was in place before you removed the material, you may not remove the material again without consensus in the talkpage. Khirurg (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:RFCBEFORE
Am I correct in thinking the locus of the current dispute is the inclusion of Greeks were the most numerous ethnic group in the lead? Is there anything else I'm missing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Does this include The vast majority of the population ruled were Greek. in the background section? Does it extend to The Pashalik was composed of an Albanian feudal class and army, with Ali's power being assured by the Greek majority. The population of the Pashalik itself was primarily Greek and Albanian. in the Consolidating Power section? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your effort to make things move, but, as I and others have stated, it is pointless to discuss a content dispute while an arbitrarily interpreted consensus-required restriction counters with WP:BRD/WP:ONUS and treats editors with double standards. Ofc, an RfC discussion can be held without one party, but it would be buffoonery. Like elections with only one candidate. The right conditions, which respect WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, need to be met:
 * 1. that consensus-required restriction is removed
 * 2. (optional) another restriction can be imposed on the article to stop edit-warring. One option is to apply a temporary 0RR on the article. After the content dispute is solved (e.g. an RfC is closed by an uninvolved editor) the 0RR can be removed.
 * Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So you can't discuss the content because the content you disagree with is in the article now? I don't understand how that interferes with the RFC process. If you're not interested in taking part in the RFC no one can make you, but there is no reason that you cannot take part in a discussion to ascertain consensus when there is a sanction placed on the article requiring consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @ScottishFinnishRadish: Yes, the locus of the dispute concerns the lead. Khirurg (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We are not asking for the other version of the article to be returned. We are saying that the consensus-required restriction should be removed, because it presupposes that the new content, whose addition started the content dispute, is the "consensus" version. Because of that, if an RfC is closed as "No cosensus", then the new content stays. Normally, as per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD, a "no consensus" means the new content should not stay in the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As I explained above, the status quo isn't irrevocably locked in when an RFC is started. I provided an example where I, as the RFC closer, reviewed the article history in-depth and provided the status quo before the dispute began. There is no reason something similar wouldn't happen in this situation in the event of a no-consensus result, especially as it is clear there has been a long-running dispute. Your input on what exactly the locus of the dispute is, and possible formulations and options for an RFC would be very helpful. Refusing to take part in a process that will draw outside editors and attract a broader set of opinions is not going to help resolve this dispute. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The "new" material has been in the article since July 19, hence it's not that new. What he's not telling you is that in Balkan topics there are usually large (>10 users) ethnic blocs of editors that !vote at RfCs, such that the result is very frequently "No Consensus". That's why he's so worried about what the outcome would be if the RfC result is "No Consensus". The only way around this is if large numbers of non-Balkan editors participate, but given the obscurity of these articles, that is usually very rare, unfortunately. Khirurg (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the RfC closer normally provides the status quo before the dispute began. But in this case the RfC closer can't do that because the consensus-required restriction says that to revert the current version, one needs "affirmative consensus". In other words, to return the status quo before the dispute began, the RfC closer needs an "affirmative consensus". Too complex? Yes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , as the admin that placed the sanction would you have any issue returning to an older status quo identified by an uninvolved closer if there's a no consensus close? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a question: why should an admin keep a sanction in place if they agree it should be breached in case the RfC is closed as "No consensus"? Is not it better to replace it with 0RR until the RfC is closed? In any case, as long as the RfC closer is allowed to apply WP:ONUS, it is OK. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As I have stated in a subsection above, I am not involved in this content dispute. However, I agree with Ktrimi991. The restriction does not allow for the application of WP:BRD and WP:ONUS in the case that the RFC is closed under "No consensus". Unless the restriction is removed, there is an unfair advantage for those who want to add the disputed content. If the restriction remains, the RFC will be substandard. Botushali (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that, the admins, despite being constantly targets of WP:BADGERING incidents, are not stepping back from their decission to not lift the restrictions or revert to a more favorable version of the article. Everybody with knowledge of Wikipedia's rules and the duties of admins, knows that the admin's intentions here are in WP:GOODFAITH and their actions absolutely in line with their responsibilities. The editors should focuse their energy on participating in the consensus-building process if they want to resolve this impasse. Anything else is only is bound to create more toxicity which is finding me firmly against. I strongly recommend that the sides cease trying their efforts on lifting the restrictions -which are responsible for them being applied in the first place- until there is a community-wide consensus. Note: the restriction doesn't override consensus. A restriction has solely preventative purposes because Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and will stay until a new consensus has formed. After a consensus is formed, and editors are seen violating it, restrictions may be re-imposed and/or become more long-term. I see no other solution to forcing the editors drop this Balkan POV warring behavior.


 * Now, since some editors are mentioning WP:ONUS, I shall remind them that this applies only in healthy situations where there have not been any restrictions, and this case here definitely is not such a healthy situation: the article became under restrictions due to editors failing to understand that although WP:ONUS states: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content., the consensus may not be determined by utilizing numerical superiority of the one side in ways detrimental to a dispute resolution as is the case here (a typical Balkan case where WP:ONUS is used as a tool for WP:OWNERSHIP by a side that enjoys a numerical superiority in the dispute). The editors should pick and initiate the consensus-building procedures already so that a third-party input can be provided. For the sake of the article, the sooner this is initiated, the better for us all. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 08:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree with this statement. Those who seek inclusion are those who want to include the sentence Greeks were the most numerous ethnic group at the lead. This sentence was not added via consensus. It was added via edit-war and it is kept in the article without having a consensus to be included. Yes, this is the sentence which in its earliest variant was first added on July 13 and it was immediately challenged and this caused an edit-war as the editors who wanted to add it couldn't build consensus for this addition . Finally, after a slow edit-war in the following days Firefangledfeathers protected the article on July 20 a few hours after a revert which added it back. Until this point, this is just a normal, full protection procedure. The protected version could have easily been the other one and the full protection is a correct decision which allows editors to take a step back and engage to find a consensus. The fundamental problem and contradiction is that then Firefangledfeathers established a revert restriction which effectively made a version without any consensus the live version in the article simply because the restriction protects it from removal. I think that the key point by Ktrimi is that the RfC cannot be filed by any editor who disagrees with the inclusion because by doing so they would be accepting that this live version which doesn't have any community consensus is the established version and they would be filing an RfC to overturn this version. This is definitely not the case. The current lead is being kept in place via a single administrative decision, not via any formal or informal consensus building process. I was not involved in the dispute and never took part in any debates/reverts but the way this was handled by itself is a big problem for the entire project and should not be made a precedent. No live version should be kept in place without consensus beyond the scope of a short full protection. The only exceptions to this fundamental pillar of wikipedia are defined by WP:CONEXCEPT - this is definitely not such a case. The lead should be returned to its pre-edit-war status, then a revert restriction may be optionally enforced and all editors who try to force a live version via edit-war should be blocked and sanctioned. If involved editors can't find a middle ground, then they can file an RfC. But no RfC can be filed if a lead which doesn't have any consensus is the live version.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's highly debatable on who WP:ONUS falls at this point. The material has been in the article since July 19, well over a month, so at this point I could just as easily argue that the onus is on those wanting to remove it. The other thing you don't mention, is that the material is strongly sourced and due in the lede, and those who try to remove it failed to provide any valid arguments. Instead it appears it was immediately challenged and this caused an edit-war was a case of WP:JDLI. A group of editors saw material they did not like, and tried to suppress it with the usual edit-warring tactics. This happens very often in these articles, but in this case, these tactics were stymied by admin intervention. And instead of seeking consensus, other editors are now posting one wall of text after another demanding the restriction be lifted. Not a good look. Khirurg (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Wrong Version: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This refers to semi/full protection and I already clarified that this isn't such a case. A specific lead version which doesn't have consensus is permanently protected from removal via a single decision in this case.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:OFFTOPIC additions
I have reverted this addition, because it is beyond the scope of the article. The Vilayet of Ioannina did not exist before 1867, and there was never an "original Vilayet of Ioannina". This article covers only the Pashalik, which was dissolved in 1822. The source furthermore does not state that Albanians were the majority in the territory in what later became the Vilayet of Ioannina during the rule of Ali Pasha, as the text that I have removed implies. Such intellectually dishonest editing should be avoided. Khirurg (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For all such edits I provide full quotes and you should avoid aspersions. Full quote: The source clearly states that Greek-speakers were more numerous in the Pashalik as a whole, but a minority in the core areas of the Pashalik which later became known as the Vilayet of Janina. Albanian-speakers were the majority in these areas and the source doesn't imply that this situation involves some demographic shift which occurred after the period of the pashalik. This removal changes the original meaning of the statement which is definitely not about depicting the pashalik as a region where a single population was the majority in all areas. You need to revert it back and propose a change, but you can't just remove it entirely because the parts which you left in the article do not reflect the work of the authors.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The source clearly states that Greek-speakers were more numerous in the Pashalik as a whole, but a minority in the core areas of the Pashalik which later became known as the Vilayet of Janina.. First of all, the source says no such thing. Second, the source does not say Greeks were "more numerous", but that they were the majority. You clearly falsified that. Third, you did not quote the source in full. Here's the full quote In the vilayet of Janina, the Greek presence and economic, educational and cultural influence was extensive, but there were also many Albanians. Apart from the Greeks and Albanians, there were also Slavs, Vlachs, Jews and Roma. In the Pashalik of Janina under Ali Pasha, a multiethnic semi-independent entity of some 75,000 square kilometres, which dominated the scene for more than 30 years, from 1788 until late 1821, the Greeks (Greek speakers to be more exact) formed the majority because the Pashalik was not confined to the original vilayet of Janina, but included other parts of southern Albania, a section of central Macedonia, most of Thessaly and even a large chunk of Sterea Ellada (Rumeli as it was then known), save for Viotia and Attica, as well as the city of Patras in Peloponnese (Morea as it was then known). The greater ethnic disparity from the days of Ali Pasha until 1912 or 1920 appeared in the vilayet of Janina, which comprised of today's Greek Epirus and southern Albania (that is all of Toskeria, the Tosk region). According to Nathalie Clayer and other specialists, to the north and centre of the vilayet, the Albanians dominated and in the south the Greeks. Most commentators tended to draw a line in the vilayet, from Saranda to Konica or from Himara and Girokaster to Konica, on the north of which the Albanians dominated and in the south the Greeks were preponderant. But there were several exceptions to this demarcation, such as the Chams in the south and the Vlachs and Roma in various places. The Janina vilayet from the 1820s until 1912 was comprised of four subunits, called santzaks: from north to south, Berat, Girokaster, Janina and Preveza. In the whole vilayet, the Greek presence and influence were considerable in these 90 years, with the Greeks a strong minority but with the Albanian speakers, be they Muslim and Orthodox Christians, the majority of the population, two-thirds of which were Muslim Tosks and one-third Orthodox Christian Tosks, living mainly in the santzak of Girokaster and in the north and west of the Janina santzak.. Albanians were only a majority in the north, above the Himara-Gjirokastra-Konitsa line. But anyway, the "90 years" refers to the period 1822-1912, which is after the dissolution of the Pashalik and hence beyond the scope of the article. I have full access to the source. Cropping quotes to leave out undesirable parts is not going to work. Khirurg (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no disagreement at all with the statement I wrote and no parts were left out: Hence you need to act accordingly. This is how a successful status quo is built and maintained.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit by User:Khirurg clearly represents a case of WP:CHERRYPICKING, by removing one part of the original information provided by the source that does not suit the POV of the editor, while keeping another part that suits the editor's POV. It misrepresents the original meaning of the source material, violating WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The editor's excuse to remove part of the original information is not a valid argument and he should revert himself. – Βατο (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no "cherry-picking" whatsoever, that's not what cherry-picking is. I only removed wording that was off-topic, as the Vilayet of Ioannina did not come into existence before 1867. I also note neither of you has addressed the glaring source falsification where "majority" is suddenly turned into "most numerous", which is a completely different meaning. Khirurg (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You really need to stop repeating the "source falsification" aspersion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * you selected one part of the source's information that suits your POV and removed another part that does not suit your POV: WP:CHERRYPICKING . The source is clear: The author is talking about a region within the Ottoman Empire that was composed by the Sanjak of Berat, Sanjak of Gjirokastër, Sanjak of Janina and Sanjak of Preveza, which constituted the core of the Pashalik of Yanina, the subject of this article. There is no need for your personal interpretation of the original source material because it is already clear. You should revert yourself. – Βατο (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is about the Pashalik, not the Vilayet. As I have repeatedly explained, the Vilayet is WP:OFFTOPIC. You are also ignoring Most commentators tended to draw a line in the vilayet, from Saranda to Konica or from Himara and Girokaster to Konica, on the north of which the Albanians dominated and in the south the Greeks were preponderant.. So if we are to discuss the Vilayet, that cannot be ignored. But in any case, like I keep saying, the Vilayet is not the Pashalik and is off-topic. Khirurg (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The author provides the information in the same context, clarifying where and the reasons why the different groups formed the majority. From the source material it is clear that the author is not discussing the Janina vilayet which was established in 1867, this is your personal WP:original research. He is discussing the region (vilayet in Ottoman Turkish) that constituted the core of the Pashalik of Yanina, the subject of this article, which was composed by the Sanjak of Berat, Sanjak of Gjirokastër, Sanjak of Janina and Sanjak of Preveza. It is not offtopic and you should restore the information as originally provided by the scholar. – Βατο (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The source refers to the territory which was later part of the Vilayet. The Pashalik of Yanina had its core area in what became known after the destruction of the pashalik as the Vilayet of Yanina. It is not anachronistic and not off-topic. For comparision, Orlov Revolt uses "Greece" because the territory involved would be later part of the country of Greece. If the content should be expanded with information from the source, then do it, but do not selectively remove parts of the sourced content. Durraz0 (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The source discusses the period 1822-1912, which is after the dissolution of the Pashalik. The claim that Albanians formed a majority in the area of the Vilayet in the period before 1822 is not backed by the source and constitutes original research. 21:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC) Khirurg (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, you changed it to the period 1822-1912? Weren't you talking about the Vilayet of Ioannina which "did not exist before 1867"? The source provides the information within the same context. It states: and explains it:, indeed:  You should restore the proper context that is originally provided by the author. – Βατο (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is correct, the Vilayet did not exist before 1867. There is no "original Vilayet". The source also states that The greater ethnic disparity from the days of Ali Pasha until 1912 or 1920 appeared in the vilayet of Janina, implying it wasn't always thus. Population movements were highly dynamic, one cannot and should not assume that because one ethnic group had a very slight majority in one area in the 19th century, that is also had a majority in the 18th century. Khirurg (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)