Talk:Kitsos Tzavelas

message: This move [] is obviously against Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph, and especially against both 1 and 2: 'Nationality and Ethnicity': He was primarily known as a Prime minister of Greece, General of the Greek Army, fighter in the Greek War of Independece. Moreover, as per MOS became notable in Greece & lived in Greece, making any alternative name form unnecessary as per the same rules.Alexikoua (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not get your point. Of course he was what you say, but this does not mean that he was not an Albanian-speaking Prime minister of Greece, General of the Greek Army, fighter in the Greek War of Independece. Just as the case shows, Kiço is the Orthodox Albanian equivalent of Hristos. As long as he was Albanian-speaking, his Albanian variant should be in there. (Hmmm, should we put out the Greek variant of Vasil Bollano too? I do not think so...).Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As far I know Vasil Bollano is a representative of the Greek community in Albania (Panajot Pano, who wasn't a Greek representative is a good example), while Tsavelas wasn't a  representative of any Albanian speaking community in Greece. As per wp:mos his Souliotic origin should be mentioned below. Albanian alternative is also clearly against wp:mos. As I remember Pakapshem was also eager to add the Albanian name [] before he received his last block.
By the way, where do u know that Souliotes were still Albanians in the 1850s? Sounds like wp:or.Alexikoua (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Totally agree with Alexikoua here.  Besides references to him as Kico Xhavella in the english literature are minimal  http://books.google.com/books?q=Ki%C3%A7o+Xhavella&btnG=Search+Books.  Needless to say, same goes for Markos Botsaris and Katerina Botsari.  Athenean (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not talking about moving a page, where the Google Scholar English would have a role, but about a second language on the lead, i.e. his mother tangue, i.e. Albanian. Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

text: As per: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph: Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.Alexikoua (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody said to writte his ethnicity in there. We are talking about the language . That has nothing to do with WP:MOS.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not an argument.  Other than the claim that Albanian was his "mother tongue", which isn't really an argument here, you haven't provided a valid argument as to why his name in Albanian should be listed.  And how come you aren't so insistent that the Albanian name of Omer Vrioni and Mahmud Dramali Pasha be given also?  The way I see it, the reason we include various languages in our articles is to help our readers.  For example, someone who read about "Kico Xhavella" somewhere else and came here, would need to know he had come to the right place.  Since references to Kitsos Tzavelas  as "Kico Xhavella" in the English literature are practically nonexistent, it is very unlikely our readers would encounter him as "Kico Xhavella".  Hence there is no need to include "Kico Xhavella" anywhere.  Athenean (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

text: You mean the alternative name form. As per wp:mos, this is needed only if it is relevant to the subject's notability. See for example John Belushi.Alexikoua (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Mahmud Pasha and Omer Vrioni are the actuall Albanian forms of the name.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article on Souliotes literally describes them as Albanian by origin - Souliot is not an ethnicity, it is a regional identity of a peoples who spoke Albanian and were Albanian by blood due to their origins. The literal article which you refer to describes them as Albanian, there is nothing wrong with keeping that consistency here. I will post this on the TP's of Kitzos Tzavelas and Markos Botsaris where you have reverted me because I do not want to engage in an edit war, and you will explain exactly why this article cannot say the Souliots are Albanian by origin. I do not think placing the ethnicity of the Souliots is necessary in the lede because of obvious reasons, especially on characters such as Marko and Kitsos, but having it in the article is not harmful.
::The article on Souliotes literally describes them as belonging to the Greek nation. Nevertheless you keep adding only partially the image of the Souliotes, and that's the epitomy of POV pushing. We need to be careful about such issues.Alexikoua (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hence why adding "of Albanian origin" would be better. See my new comments. Botushali (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   As I suggested in Markos Botsaris TP: For those who are not familiar with the topic, they will have no idea on what exactly the Souliots are (as I'm sure there are many who have not heard of the unique community before) - a short descriptor, such as "A member of the Souliotes - an Eastern Orthodox community of Albanian origin within Greece - he was the son of Fotos Tzavelas and grandson of Lambros Tzavelas, both of whom were famous for their roles in the Souliot struggles against Ali Pasha, the Pasha of Yanina." would suffice enough to provide a basic understanding of what the Souliots were. As I have previously said, feel free to add "who now identify as Greeks" if you deem it necessary, but it only serves to improve the article by adding a one-liner on the Souliotes. "Albanian Souliots" alone is indeed rather questionable, as I have agreed to as well. Botushali (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

text: To be precise "who now identify as Greeks" is wrong, they identified as Greeks as soon as they begun their struggle against the Ottomans (Muslim Albanians etc.).Alexikoua (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't change the fact that they are of Albanian origin and were not always considered Greek, which is an identity that they have been assimilated into for the last 200 years or so. Their Albanian origin and their assimilation as Greeks are the characterising features behind their identity. Also, "who now identify as Greeks" is entirely correct, because they do identify as Greeks nowadays, do they not? Botushali (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to read the discussion so far in the related article: 1. "they are of Albanian origin": a claim not clear since we have contradicting views on this per Souliotes article, 2. "were not always considered Greek": it's also OR. You need to provide decent arguments on the subject. wp:IDONTHEARTHAT can be disruptive in this case. The claim that Souliotes should be simply mentioned as "of Albanian origin" is POV. Imagine writing that E. Rama is of Greek origin because Koleka was ethnic Greek. No, don't do that again.Alexikoua (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

text: "peoples who spoke Albanian and were Albanian by blood due to their origins." You can not assume that everyone sharing a common language is also sharing common ancestry. Cultural assimilation has played a large role in an increase of geographic extend for some languages, and extinction or near extinction for others. And I have doubts that Albanians were adhering to endogamy. What would prevent interethnic marriage or other forms of interbreeding in the Balkans? Dimadick (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Souliots 

message: Who is this "Ahmet Nepravishta", that his opinion is so notable it must be given a whole paragraph? We could easily include the opinions of dozens of other 19th century figures. WP:UNDUE is exactly for cases like this. Khirurg (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We as editors don't decide anything about the significance of the content if it's considered significant for inclusion in academic sources. I added this section from Schuberth (2021), Lord Byrons letzte Fahrt Eine Geschichte des Griechischen Unabhängigkeitskrieges. It's not random WP:TRIVIA from an amateur website, but something which a reliable source considered significant in an academic context. By the way, Ahmet Nepravishta was the Derven Aga of the time. Also, I noticed you cited my behaviour here as supposed evidence for tag-teaming; if I am involved in tagteaming with other editors here, then so are you and Alexikoua, who followed me around to revert me on several of these Souliote-related articles. Same principle. Botushali (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "We as editors" absolutely decide on the significance of the content. It's called WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE, and WP:CONSENSUS. This is a piece of trivia, basically a non-notable 19th century individual insulting one of his enemies, from whom he demanded surrender. There were literally hundreds of "Derven Agas" in the Ottoman Empire. This is not encyclopedic material, and devoting 1kb of space to this piece of trivia is un-encyclopedic. As for your behavior, that will be decided elsewhere, but it's interesting you keep bringing it up. Khirurg (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the latter part of the first sentence. Furthermore, this is important as it illustrates that despite being of Albanian origin himself, Kiço was involved in conflict with fellow Albanians, highlighting how Albanians were present on both sides of the Greek war of independence - if you want to shorten it, I can work with that, but I will not accept it's removal since it is important in highlighting his ethnic origin, which it seems you want to hide. Furthermore, he was the Derven Aga of his region at the time - that's not a random Muslim Albanian, they were important in enforcing Ottoman rule and order in mountain regions and mountain passes in general, but especially in the context of managing and utilising klephts and armatoles. That's no small position. Botushali (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is absolutely nothing notable about Nepravishta, Derven Agas were literally all over the Empire. , finally the truth comes out, only problem is, his ethnic origin is already highlighted multiple times in the opening paragraph of the "Early Life" section, so this is completely WP:UNDUE. There is nothing encyclopedic here, it's just old-fashioned taunts and insults by combatants, which happens in every war. By the way, at Souliotes I recall you were part of a group of editors that wanted to minimize the Albanian ethnicity of Ali Pasha, lest it make the Souliotes appear "less Albanian". Some consistency would be nice. Anyway, bottom line is this is deeply WP:UNDUE and will be removed. I left the first part of what you added, but you can't have everything, and you just can't ram things through by edit-warring without consensus. You should also know that if it goes to RfC, the outcome will almost certainly be "no consensus to include" (i.e. it does not get included), but it shouldn't even come to that. Khirurg (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You recall correctly, but without purpose. Emphasising Ali Pasha of Janina's ethnic origin has nothing to do with the Souliotes. It's irrelevant. Consistency does not equate to placing random details on a page that aren't relevant to the life of those being discussed in the article. I will shorten it, but part of it is still important. Botushali (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I had shortened it already, to what was WP:DUE. His ethnic origin is mentioned four times even in my version. The quote from the non-notable Nepravishta is not encyclopedic and WP:UNDUE. Khirurg (talk) Khirurg (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Still trivial and unencyclopedic. is speculation,  is WP:TRIVIA (so what if "Ahmet Nepravishta" "may have been amused" - why is this important?), and Ahmet Nepravishta is not notable. Sorry, but the whole passage non-notable gossip and trivia. Khirurg (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nepravishta's POV is quite interesting I believe. It explains clearly how the Orthodox Albanian Souliotes were viewed by their Muslim Albanian co-ethnics. I think there is no reason why it has to be removed from the article, the quote was already taken off so no real UNDUE issues either. Alltan (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nepravishta is not notable, and neither is what "may have amused" him and other gossip. Khirurg (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

text: You don't WP:OWN the article, so drop the tone. Nepravishta was a nobody and what "may have amused" him is of interest to no one. You do not have consensus for this edit. Your language indicates you think you have "won" because of numbers, but be aware that what is added without consensus can easily be removed. Now watch your incivility, because every diff you post can and will be used against you. Khirurg (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Boo hoo, I don’t care for your threats. You filed a witch-hunt “tagteaming” report on me that is utterly false, and is not being taken seriously, so your attempts at threatening me through reports is not working. Neither do you own these articles but you seem to love making demands, see “The only way I will accept a foreign name in the lede...” in the first post of the Name-mongering section of this TP. Take some of your own advice, if anything your own hypocrisy will be used against you should you ever choose to report me for something you are guilty of. Also, Nepravishta is not a “nobody”, he was the local Derven Aga and probably played a greater role in history than you or I ever will. Careful with your word choice. Again, since you seem to be blind to reason, the passage clearly states he was one of multiple contemporaries amused. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not about “winning” or “losing” on articles, it’s meant to be a collaborative project. This exact attitude of us vs them is what made you create a ridiculous “tagteaming” report in the first place, and I refuse to subscribe to your wiki politics. Botushali (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm down, what kind of behavior is is this?  Literally every single post of yours towards me is arrogant, aggressive and downright boorish. If this rudeness on your part is intended to provoke me into overreacting, it will fail like all the others. Ahmet Nepravishta was a nobody, and you don't even know what a "Derven Aga" is, but you keep bandying that title about as if it means something extremely important (it doesn't - they were a dime a dozen).   Your behavior is a textbook example of uncollaborative behavior. Constant snide remarks, condescension, arrogance, and downright rudeness. Controversial material added by brute-force edit-warring is not exactly collaborative, either. Khirurg (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This has to be a joke right? How come you are always accusing others of what you yourself have the habit of doing? Please stop projecting and check your own behavior, seriously. Ahmet Nepravishta as pointed out by Botushali was not a "nobody" (yet again weird comment to make) and his opinion is important whatever you like it or not. Ahmet Q. (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Why should I collaborate with someone who refuses to do so productively? Stop being hypocritical in almost everything you say and every accusation you make. Also, my attitude is reflective of your behaviour towards me, including that bogus tagteaming report. Also, I already explained to you what a Derven Aga is in the section above, but you refuse to listen -  an official of the Ottoman Empire who was tasked with guarding mountain regions and mountain passes in general by enforcing law and order on behalf of the Ottomans. They played an important role in the management of Klephts and armatoles alike. Stop dancing around in circles because you just can't listen to what others communicate to you. Botushali (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What "may have amused" a non-notable militia chieftain is not encyclopedic material, and you know that, you re just using to try and emphasize over and over again that "he was Albanian". Taunts and insults between combatants are non-notable and illustrate absolutely nothing. He was just taunting Tzavelas to get under his skin, not unlike how you yourself are behaving now. Khirurg (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahmet Nepravishta 

message: I wonder if there is a specific policy to add his surname in Albanian 'twice' in the article (in fact in the modern Albanian script not in the Souliotic).Alexikoua (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Suliotic = Albanian. They spoke the Albanian language. Anyways, the first one is simply there to provide the Albanian (or Suliotic) version of his clan name. What policy is there to remove it? Botushali (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate information

message: Botushali needs to explain why he changed the latest stable version [] as was last editted by Ktrimi991 [] and stayed for months (=stable version).Alexikoua (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not the one who initially changed the latest stable version, D.S Lioness did. I only corrected some of the misinformed edits they made. I prefer Ktrimi's version anyways. You should have checked the edit history properly before accusing me of things I didn't do. Botushali (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Disruptive edits againgst wp:BRD