Talk:Kitsos Tzavelas

Untitled

This move [[1]] 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)

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)

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 [[2]] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Tzavelas was primarily a Greek General and Prime Minister this means that this isn't relevant to the subject's notability.Alexikoua (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said to writte his ethnicity in there. We are talking about the language {{lang-sq|Kiço Boçari}}. That has nothing to do with WP:MOS.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Because Mahmud Pasha and Omer Vrioni are the actuall Albanian forms of the name.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The name Kitsos is derived from his actual name Kyriakos and not from Christos (Kyriaki, Kikitsa, Kitsa) so balkanian's word your argument is invalid. Othon I (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Souliots

@Khirurg: 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)

Hence why adding "of Albanian origin" would be better. See my new comments. Botushali (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Khirurg: 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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Name-mongering

I see the usual name-mongering is in full swing. In this case, per WP:MOSNAME does mention that names in other languages should be included in the first line. This is not a town or village. The only way I will accept a foreign name in the lede is if it can be demonstrated that at least 10% of English language sources use the alternate name. In this case, even the two sources that were added do not use it, but simply mention it ([[use-mention distinction). I am very skeptical that any English language sources refer to the subject as "Kico Xhavella", they seem to universally refer to him as Kitsos Tzavelas. Khirurg (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The addition of a non-existent script at the time Tzavellas lived is also unacceptable.Alexikoua (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

As I see this type of extremism insist to put the origins on first line, but imagine doing that on Edi Rama (considering that that bibliography states (Petifer, Vickers) that he has Greek ancestors, Koleka etc from the Greek community of Himara.)Alexikoua (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It’s Tzavelas*, and would you prefer I put “or Kiço Xhavella” in the lede instead? Also, Khirurg’s demand of discovering whether 10% of English language sources use the name is a) tiresome because he hasn’t ever improved this article yet wants to make demands on it and b) difficult to actually find. So instead, what I’ve done is put “Kitsos Tzavelas” in Google Books, where it came up with 508 results, whereas “Kiço Xhavella” came up with 99 results. At the end of the day, I don’t think any of these stats are that important, but what is important is that Kiço was a Souliot, therefore he was ethnically Albanian, and deserves to have his name written in the Albanian form. Furthermore, the two sources state that his Souliot contemporaries preferred the use of his Albanian name over his Greek one, and if he was known by the name “Kiço Xhavella” by his community and the wider Souliot society that he belonged to, why should this name not be included? Botushali (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It can be included, in the body text, not in the lede. WP:MOSETHNICITY clearly states that ethnicity should not be emphasized in the lede. This dual nomenclature is not found in any biography articles on my watchlist. By the way, your 99 hits for "Kico Xhavella" are only for Albanian language sources. This is the English wikipedia, it doesn't matter what Albanian sources use, there is sq.wiki for that. Khirurg (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

There’s German, French hits too. Either way, it’s besides the point, two sources say that it is his native name and that it was used by his community. Having the name Kiço Xhavella in the lede doesn’t emphasise ethnicity, it simply states his actual native name and the name that he was known by in his community and by his Souliot contemporaries. Botushali (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Name used by his community? You are not serious, the modern Albanian script was non-existent that time, that's anachronism and completely non-historic. The Souliotes wrote only in Greek and this fact is sourced. Alexikoua (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Its his native name, as in the one he was called by before Souliotes became Greeks after the 1930s. Alltan (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, it's WP:UNDUE for the lede since no English language sources use it. WP:MOSETHNICITY, WP:LEDE. There is nothing in "native name" in WP:MOSBIO. And it was never written down that way in his own time. Khirurg (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Precisely what Alltan said - what he was called by in his community. If you could stop making incessant edit and RV wars over things which you are not correct in, it would be greatly appreciated. Like I said, we can either put “or Kiço Xhavella” or simply have the Albanian version of his name in brackets, either way it needs to go in there. Botushali (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The Albanian version of his name, which is not used by English language sources, and was never written down, will not go into the first line of the lede. No matter how hard you and several others edit-war, it just won't. It's WP:UNDUE and won't fly. So kindly stop with this futile "flag-planting" because it's just a waste of everyone's time. Khirurg (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Kitsos Tzavellas was a Souliote Albanian, so it is automatically relevant to have his name in that language. See In some cases, a subject may have changed their full name at some point after birth. In these cases, the birth name may be given in the lead as well, if relevant See. MOS:CHANGEDNAME Anytime he said his name in Albanian he would have said it's Kiço, so MOS:MULTIPLENAMES may also apply. It will therefore be used in the lead accordingly. Alltan (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It was never written at "Kico", until the 20th century in Albania. So no, it won't. And there was no "name change" whatsoever, that's just absurd. Khirurg (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Alltan: wp:OR and POV again, wikipedia is not a forum to push this kind of disruption. Also without backing your claims with wp:RS your version is problematic. You understand that simply pushing your own fictional version of history is quite wrong.Alexikoua (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you rephrase yourself? Alltan (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

He was still a Souliote Albanian, and his name in Albanian is known. Where does it say it has to be a written primary source from the era? Alltan (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing in MOS:BIO about "native name" (that was never written down until a century later), and ethnicity should not be overemphasized per WP:MOSETHNICITY. You have no policy based arguments, only brute-force edit-warring. Khirurg (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Well the stuff I wrote about is from MOS, so I do have some pretty good wikipolicy backing me. I can assure you if I have no policy argument, you can report me to and admin or ask an admin for advice/oversight etc. Alltan (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

You got nothing. There is no "name change" whatsoever. He never "changed his name". It's completely ludicrous to think so. You are just trying to impose your will by brute-force edit-warring. Won't work. Khirurg (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I did say even if his name wasn't changed, MOS:MULTIPLENAMES applies, as does MOS:BIRTHNAME. Souliotes spoke Albanian, we know the Albanian rendering of his name. It is not necessary for us to have a written letter where he writes his name in Albanian. Well he couldn't even do that since there was no Albanian alphabet back then, everyone wrote in Greek or Ottoman Abjad. Alltan (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

MOS:BIRTHNAME is for people that acquire a different name than the one they were born with, like Courtney Love. Doesn't apply here, his name was the same throughout his life. MOS:MULTIPLENAMES is for people who have had multiple names throughout their life, like Bill DeBlasio. Also does not apply here. This is the same exact name, in two different languages. There is nothing in MOS:BIO about a "native" name, or "ethnic name", or a name in another language. WP:UNDUE applies. Khirurg (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Well even if that all were true, the natice name can still be included per MOS:ETHNICITY. He was after all a Souliote, and a Xhavella clan leader for a large part of his life. Alltan (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Even if all that were true is just another way of saying "policy be damned, I don't care". MOS:ETHNICITY actually states that ethnicity should not be emphasized in the lede. So it works against you. You have no policy-based argument.

"He was a Souliote" is not an argument. There is no WP:SOULIOTE. Khirurg (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It is interesting that accusations of “brute-force edit-warring” are being hurled around by people guilty of that exact same thing - Khirurg and Alexikoua show no interest in actually improving the article by adding sources or the like, rather they just want to remove any traces of Albanian in the article by forcing through multiple RV’s and edit wars. Additionally, it is interesting to hear Khirurg call out others for their apparent lack of policy-based arguments (which is false), when Khirurg himself is using an irrelevant WP:MOSETHNICITY policy. Ethnicity is not being overemphasised simply by having the name that he was known by in his community and society also stated. Botushali (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting that users that have never edited the article before suddenly show up out of nowhere to preform quick reverts right when they are needed. That will be mentioned in the appropriate venue. WP:ONUS is on those seeking to make changes, there is no WP:CONSENSUS for the change. So you are just trying to ram it through over policy-based objections by brute-force. Khirurg (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey Khirurg. I would appreciate you stopping your offtopic aspersions. You can just report the 50+ member strong cabal of editors who deviously manipulate the Wikipedia narrative. I am sure thats' never been tried before, but it should go well. Alltan (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It is interesting, right? Users like you and Alexikoua who have not added a line of sourced information to this article combining with “brute-force” (terribly unsuitable term by the way) RV’s when I have added more substance to this article than both of you combined. You simply want to hide any mention of his Albanian origins. I have already provided sources (from non-Albanians too) that state that Kitsos was called by the Albanian form of his name - Kiço Xhavella - in his Souliot community and society. He grew up with that name and proceeded to be called by that name in his local community. Outside of the Souliot community, sure, Kitsos Tzavelas was his name, but inside his own Albanian-speaking community, it was Kiço Xhavella. Why that is so hard for you to accept is beyond me. If you think the sources are wrong, then take that to RSN; otherwise, accept it and move on with your life. Botushali (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Brute-force is the perfect term. You have no policy-based arguments, and are just trying to ram things through by force. You simply want to hide any mention of his Albanian origins. Careful with the personal attacks and bad-faith assumptions. This is the English wikipedia, not sq.wiki. Only names widely used by English language sources go in the lede. Khirurg (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

That is not true at all, Tzavelas was an ethnic Albanian so adding his native name is exactly what should be done. Please, refrain from trying to remove reliable sources by using brute force as you have the habit of doing. It becomes apparent that you have some issue with the content but your personal opinion about the reliable sources is of no value to the website. Also, I find it amusing that of all people here you are the one making comments about bad-faith assumptions. You should follow your own advice considering that you just four days ago commented this on an user's talk page: [3]. Ahmet Q. (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

A name not used by English language sources will not be brute-force edit-warred into the article without consensus by a group of users, no matter how much they edit-war. Khirurg (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Tzavelas was an ethnic Albanian so adding his native name is exactly what should be done? If you believe that origin should be added at 1st line in violation of wp:MOSBIO, then this project isn't for you. We need to follow some basic rule and wp:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT, something that you desperately deny.Alexikoua (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

You know what's funny? A search for "Kico Xhavella" on Google Scholar returns a grand total of 1 hit [4] for English language sources between 2000 and 2022. Khirurg (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Albanian editors might have to explain why Kiço Mustaqi (an ethnic Greek and leading military figure in Albania) isn't presented as an ethnic Greek from the very start (under their rationale) Suggestions? Why his article begins with "an Albanian general"? Perhaps they can finally follow wp:MOSBIO. Alexikoua (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

A Google Books search restricted to English language and 21st century similarly returns only one hit. There's just no way. This would easily be defeated in an RfC, although that shouldn't even be necessary. Khirurg (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

A name not used by English language sources will not be brute-force edit-warred into the article without consensus by a group of users, no matter how much they edit-war. Kirurgh I urge you to follow your own advice, this sentence describes your own behavior and that of Alexikoua perfectly. MOSBIO has nothing to do with the name translation in the lead so I don't know what your talking about, furthermore it would be really nice Alexikoua if you refrained from referring to editors by the ethnic origin you presume they have. By the way, a Google Books search restricted to English language and 21st century for the Greek name returns zero hits [5][6]. If we were to follow Kirurgh's rationale, then my question would be: why should we even mention the Greek translation in the lead? I think that the Albanian translation is more than enough for the lead. Ahmet Q. (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this some kind of joke? Like, are you even serious [7]? By the way, can you tell us who is "Ahmet Nepravishta" and why his opinion should be included? Perhaps we should also include the opinion of tandom 19th century Greeks as well? I'm sure you'd be totally ok with that. Khirurg (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Ahmet Nepravishta was the local Derven Aga, 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. That's no insignificant position. Additionally, an Albanian official decently high in the Ottoman ranks ironically fighting against an Albanian chieftain rebel is important in indicating that Albanians were present on both sides, and his comment is a relevant primary source that affirms the ethnic origins of Kiço and the Souliotes. Botushali (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Ahmet Nepravishta

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)

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)

"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)

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)

There is absolutely nothing notable about Nepravishta, Derven Agas were literally all over the Empire. since it is important in highlighting his ethnic origin, 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)

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)

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)

Still trivial and unencyclopedic."may have" is speculation, amused 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)

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)

Nepravishta is not notable, and neither is what "may have amused" him and other gossip. Khirurg (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Khirurg, can you stop whining? The passage says that Kitsos and the other Souliotes spearheading the Greek War of Independence may have amused their contemporaries, not just Nepravishta. I already explained that Nepravishta’s letter is relevant as it is a letter relevant to Kitsos, the topic of the article, and it provides a good, primary outlook on the dynamics between the populations of the time. I have already conceded the quote, and am now going to refuse any other changes. I tried to work with you, but if you just want to keep crying in an effort to subtract solid information on the dynamics between Kitsos and the Souliotes with their fellow Albanians of the Muslim faith for absolutely no reason, considering Nepravishta’s leading role in the local Ottoman government, then I have no interest in making any further concessions to suit your POV. I’m not interested in extending this discussion either, because it has already been discussed, and I do not want to keep wasting my time on you when you do not want to work cooperatively. Botushali (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I have already conceded the quote, and am now going to refuse any other changes. 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)

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)

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). Furthermore, Wikipedia is not about “winning” or “losing” on articles, it’s meant to be a collaborative project. 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)

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)

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)

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)

Duplicate information

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)

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)

Native Name

Hi @Khirurg, since we’ve had this discussion previously regarding Kitsos’ name in bibliography, we’ll follow up. You are correct in saying Kiço Xhavella is not heavily used in bibliography and therefore probably does not warrant a place in the lede, although sources do indeed discuss Kitsos being a native Albanian speaker in a native Albanian speaking community (Souliotes). In fact, we have already utilised a source which states that he was natively known by the name Kiço Xhavella. I have not seen a policy that the native name has to be extremely prominent in bibliography, unlike the lede; since his native name (as discussed by sources) is Kiço Xhavella, I am certain that it warrants placement in the “Native Name” section of the info box. Botushali (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Was that script used by the Souliotes that time? To make it straight what kind of writing did they use? Did he really signed as Kiço Xhavella somewhere? Nevertheless Psimouli is very clear that the Souliotes only wrote in Greek.Alexikoua (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Must native names be written in order for them to be native? A source already states that it is his native name. Provide a Wiki policy that states names must be written down on a piece of paper in order to be declared a native name for info box use. If so, then fair enough, it won’t be included. Botushali (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Kizzo Tzavellas

• Comment: I've never read what this discussion was about, I just kept seeing activity over 9 months but I never actually read its content. Not unexpectedly, it's one of the many trivial debates which shouldn't exist. Per Template:Infobox officeholder, |native_name is used to include the person's name in his native mother tongue. It doesn't specify that the figure's mother tongue should only be one and it doesn't refer to which specific alphabet it should use, hence there is no alphabet issue. It doesn't refer to the name's popularity in sources published in English as the criterion for its inclusion as the key factor is that the name should be in a mother tongue of the figure. Kiço Xhavella is the name in his mother tongue and the spelling used naturally conforms to the modern norms for the spelling of Albanian. The transliteration Kitsos Tzavellas itself is such use of a norm of the name which came to be popularized in English. Early spellings in contemporary publications include even Kitzo Djavellas (George Finlay) or Kizzo Tzavellas as attested in the contemporary description of the painting of the infobox and in Greek, the preferred spelling at that time was Kitzos Tzavellas. If someone wanted to add the name of Kiço Mustaqi in Greek, per the clearly described use of |native_name, I don't think that anyone could object it by arguing that it's not a popular name in English bibliography or ask if he ever signed with this name during his career because the criterion for inclusion is unrelated to any of these two questions. Thus, the name should be included as |native_name because it does reflect his mother tongue without excluding the use of any other native name. On the upside, its inclusion does have value for readers because they will find information about him by searching for this variant - information which they won't find by searching other variants.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: Let me sum up, the form Kiço Xhavella is written in a non-existent 19th century script & also never used by Souliotes. Even in Markos Botsaris dictionary the words that belonged to the Souliotic idiom were written in Greek letters. As such if we need to use a name in his native Souliotic it would be extremely weird to use a script that was developed much later by non-Souliotic populations. If we need to use a native name this should be written in Greek letters.

I had the same question in biographies of Bronze Age era Greeks and avoided transliterations in Greek alphabet since it was not in use that time. The same applies here with Kitsos Tzavellas as well as to biography articles in general. Alexikoua (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Alexikoua, you have still failed entirely to provide a policy-based reason as to why Kiço Xhavella is not a native name. RS bibliography states that Kiço Xhavella is his native name. There is no policy that states that his name must be written on a piece of paper from a certain time period in order for it to be considered his native name. @Maleschreiber, on the other hand, has a policy-based argument. If you continue to oppose this addition in light of Wiki policy supporting its inclusion, then you are simply violating Wiki rules because you just don't like it. In fact, Marko Boçari is the native name of Markos Botsaris as per RS bibliography that states this. After this discussion is concluded, his native name should also be added to his article. Botushali (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The name you have tried to add is a made-up spelling that has never been used by anyone, anywhere. It is of no use or interest to anyone. If you insist, start an RfC or find a way to get consensus. Khirurg (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Stop lying, Khirurg, it is not made-up. Kiço Xhavella is used by Albanians and the Souliotes were Albanian speaker. Even RS sources from non-Albanians use it at times. I should not have to waste people's time (as well as my own) and start an RfC when policy and RS bibliography clearly states that it is his native name. Read the article, perhaps, and you will see it. You should start an RfC to get it removed, since you do not have policy-based reasons to remove it in the first place. Botushali (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

His original Souliot clan-name was recorded as Djavella in early 19th century sources, wich corresponds to Xhavella (Albanian pronunciation: [dʒaˈveɫa]) used in present-day scholarship for his native name. – Βατο (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Present day scholarship uses "Tzavellas", it does not use "Xhavella". Khirurg (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is asking to move the article to Xhavella, however the native name field in the infobox will serve its purpose. Alltan (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Present-day scholarship uses Tzavellas as the common name, but it uses also Xhavella as a native name, relevant reliable sources are already included into the article about it. There is not reason for removal. – Βατο (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Be civil, unless you want to get blocked again. Now, since you are trying to add something to the article, the burden of getting WP:CONSENSUS is on you. It is interesting that you are trying to shift this burden on to me. Could it be because you know you are very unlikely to get consensus for your proposed addition? After all, if your case is as strong as you claim, it shouldn't be hard to get consensus, via RfC or any other mechanism. Khirurg (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

We have sourcing regarding the spelling of Kitsos' native name, and since there is native name field in the infobox, which doesn't specify it to be exactly written down in modern Albanian script, I will go ahead and per wp:BOLD reinsert his native name. Of course, if a policy based exclusion or some other argument is brought up we can continue discussing. Alltan (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• I do not have much time now, but one should take a look at the documentation of the infobox. It does not say that the native name should be in common ise in English sources. The claim that "Kiço Xhavella" is in a script that did not exist in the 19th century could not be more frivolous and weak: "Kiço Xhavella" is in Latin script; the infobox is nowhere required to use only this or that script anyways. The other claim that "Kiço Xhavella" is a made-up spelling is even worse. As the article says: Tzavelas grew up in exile in Kerkyra, the likely location of where he learned Greek, his mother tongue being the Souliotic dialect of Albanian. As such, he was known by his Albanian name, Kiço Xhavella. He was Kiço Xhavella way before learning to speak Greek. That is what a native name is. Based on the relevant infobox guideline and the number of participants here, I see consensus for inclusion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Kizzo Tzavellas (but never written as Kiço Xhavella as proposed)

The concept to use completely irrelevant scripts that were not in use throughout the 19th century is indeed frivolous and weak. The editors that are in favor of such a version need to provide evidence that this name was written as such. No wonder, nothing presented so far, even the name written in his picture present a different transliteration.Alexikoua (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy which says we need to provide that as far as I know. We only need a source which specifies how his name is said in Albanian. That is all. Alltan (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A native name is not necessarily a written one. It is how someone is called by his own community, especially in his mother tongue. The academic source is clear on that; it is not up to you to say whether that is true or not. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Spellings are historical constructs; they change as the norms of writing a language change. They all reflect a specific phonology, hence when foreign authors in the 19th century wrote down as /zz/ or /tsch/ or /tz/ what we now write as /ç/ in Albanian. |native_name doesn't require a specific spelling to have been used when the figure lived, it just requires that the specific name which is to be included in the article to represent the mother tongue of the figure. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

We need to stay neutral and avoid the use of ahistorical contemporary (19th century) scripts. Imagine also if we use Greek names on Albanians of Greek origin how weird this can been seen. An English speaker doesn't care how his name was written in modern Albanian or even about Albanian spelling rules in this case here.Alexikoua (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The addition of his native name is completely in line with Wikipedia policy. Alltan (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not your job to decide what an English speaker doesn't care about. The infobox has the native_name parameter for a reason. The academic source says that the subject was called Kiço Xhavella by his people, and that's enough. This discussion has already become pointless. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually not at all, that's contrary to wp:MOSBIO. His native name was never written the way you claim: that simple. I have to agree about that this is pointless as such I suggest any changes to be made only after RfC.Alexikoua (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It is pointless because from 7 editors involved, 5 agree on inclusion. So there is consensus based on the relevant infobox guideline. Why should an RfC be opened every time you disagree with 5 or more editors? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You need to take a deep breath and be patience since this discussion started on July 1. I suggest a 7-day period is a good time for all users to add their views and comment on the issue. No need to haste. There is no reason to avoid RcF, right?Alexikoua (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You tell me to take a deep breath? I am not the one furiously reverting other editors in topics entirely unrelated to my topics of interest [8]. The RfC is at least a month; that is wasted time for such an obvious thing like native_name and such a clear case of consensus. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: As has already been presented above, there is no valid reason for not including Kiço Xhavella as a native name in the info box. Wikipedia rules do not specify that the name must be written in a specific contemporary script, as such, counter arguments based on this rationale cannot be taken seriously. Furthermore, the current consensus is that the name remains in the info box. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
• There is no policy requiring to use any specific alphabet anywhere. Souliotes spoke Albanian and if there's an Albanian name for this person, it should be added. Another issue could be if this is a fringe name not in use by many sources, even Albanian ones.

Likewise, any ethnic Greek in Albania should have a Greek-language name in their article if available. Super Ψ Dro 10:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

This exactly what I suggested that should be done in articles like Kiço Mustaqi.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a general comment because there seem to be a lot of misunderstandings here. He don't know what "Souliotika" was, as a language. It most likely was some kind of Albanian, but we don't know what part of the population spoke it, or exactly what its characteristics were. We know from Botsaris's dictionary that the dialect was likely either not spoken by part of the population, which natively spoke Greek and only learnt it as a second language, or it was significantly influenced by Greek, perhaps to the point of being a sort of Greek-Albanian creole.

Now, on this specific example, it uses a form that is not found anywhere in the sources as any kind of alias, therefore violating Wikipedia's basic principles. Apart from that, let's look at the crux of the issue and disregard policy for a bit. What does the addition of this Standard Modern Albanian name do? For one, it uses an alternate transcription of the same name in an alphabet that did not exist when the person in question lived. Secondly, since a lot of people want to disregard that, let's see what it does in terms of phonetics. It does three things: 1) it removes final "s"s from his names, 2) it changes apico-alveolar affricates into postalveolar ones, 3) it velarises the "l" sound. We have essentially zero evidence that any of these traits were part of the Souliote dialect, whatever it was, or that it was ever how anyone pronounced his name during his lifetime.

Of course all this is about language, as Albanian ethnic identity did not exist at that point and all the people concerned identified as Greeks, as does the vast majority of their descendants today. --Antondimak (talk) 09:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

An imperfect but in my opinion useful analogy. The Frisians are a group of people whose ancestral language is most closely related to English than any other neighbouring language, and we are more certain about that than about the Souliotes, as we know that language fairly well. Imagine going to an article of a historical Frisian person and adding an Modern English version of their name as their "native name". For example, going to the Matthias Petersen article and adding "Matthew Peterson" (though in this case that level of standardisation and the alphabet already existed in the English language). --Antondimak (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Albanian ethnic identity did not exist at that point and all the people concerned identified as Greeks Albanian ethnic identity existed long before this era and it's documented much earlier. The people concerned were not identified as Rhomioi in relevant sources, but as Albanians. They also didn't call themselves Greeks and there are many, many sources about the language they spoke. The Souliotes are not a mysterious and mythical people. The grandfather of Marko Boçari called himself "leader of the Albanians". The identities of descendants of any people is irrelevant for the determination of the identity of their ancestors, but the claim that the vast majority of descendants of Souliotes identify as Greeks today is itself inaccurate. 1/5 to 1/3 of Souliotes had become Muslims and their descendants are just (Cham) Albanians today and from the Orthodox clans, a part moved to Albania. Their descendants include figures like the Albanian nationalist Kol Tromara. History is much more complex than what national(ist) narratives in all Balkan countries teach. The Greek historian V. Psimouli is a great source about the history of the Souliotes and it's probably the most comprehensive work in historiography about them.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not directly related to the question of Kizzo's native name and how and where to write it down in the article, but I would like to make a couple of observations. First,as far as the general point about the Souliots being Albanians in an ethnic sense. I would be happy to be corrected with a more up-to-date overview of the meaning of the concept in social Sciences, but my understanding of ethnic identity/ethnicity is that its key component is a notion of putative common descent of the members of the group concerned. I don't think that the Souliots were Albanians in this sense, given that (1) they had a temporally very limited account of their community's past and, more importantly, (2) due to the fact that, as Psimouli states in her monograph and as is written in the relevant section of the article that deals with them, the Souliots had formed "the consciousness of a particular moral and cultural community related to its abode, while distinguishing the Souliots from the surrounding Greek-speaking and Albanian-speaking populations." (added emphasis). I do not recall the instance that Maleschreiber mentions of bashiaBotzari presenting himself as leader of the Albanians, though I do not doubt the veracity of the statement or other similar statements or that the Souliots were (as they were described at the time) Albanians/Arvanites in a certain respect (speaking Albanian, organized socially in faras etc). What I 'm trying to say is that it is a mistake (and contrary to what Psimouli writes about the distinctiveness of the Souliots from both Greek-speakers and Albanian-speakers of the area) to interpret it as evidence of *ethnic* identity strictly speaking.

Second, Maleschreiber writes that "The people concerned [= i.e.the Souliots] were not identified as Rhomioi in relevant sources, but as Albanians." While it is, of course, true that the Souliots had been described as Albanians/Arvanites in the era's sources, it is not true that they "were not identified as Rhomioi". In fact, Psimouli provides such instances of the Souliots being referred to as "Romeyi" [=Romaioi], instead of merely "Hristiani" [=Christian's] and I had referred to such instances in a talk page message of mine responding to Maleschreiber from last year -- see here ("This is the case with the Souliots as well. [...] mountainous abode"). Ashmedai 119 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The idea that something comparable to the modern Albanian identity existed and that even Souliotes were part of it is in fact one of the modern Balkan nationalist narratives. Your main point is that "The people concerned were not identified as Rhomioi in relevant sources, but as Albanians", which is very obviously false for anyone knowing the relevant history (even people much less related to anything Modern Greek were called "Rhomioi"), and Ashmedai answered it. I see no opposition to any of my other arguments, especially the important ones related to the linguistics. --Antondimak (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, Albanians have existed for a very long time. If you do not understand that, it is best that you stay away from the Balkan topic area. Botushali (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, I do not think that my remark on the attestation of descriptions of the Souliots as "Romeyi"/Romaioi has a significant bearing on the question of including the name of Kizzo in Albanian in the article. My two cents would be that, since this form [using the modern Albanian transcription of his name] is found in the works of reputable non-Albanian contemporary authors such as Oliver Jens Schmitt, it merits inclusion in the article, despite the fact that editors of this encyclopedia (including me) consider it somewhat problematic from a -let's say- historicist viewpoint. Perhaps accompanying it with some sort of note[s] that inform the readers on the fact that the Souliots were only writing in Greek or/and that the modern Albanian alphabet postdates Djavella, being a product of the 19th century Albanian national movement would mitigate the fears of those objecting to including the name for reasons of historical accuracy. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Including information on the Albanian alphabet is irrelevant to an article about Kiço Xhavella. Your logic implies that we should also be including notes on all historical Albanian figures that predate the Congress of Monastir - it’s unnecessary, pointless, confusing and misleading. The current Albanian alphabet is the written form of the Albanian language that has been around for millennia. There’s no need to add a note for Albanian spellings on figures who predate the creation of the modern Albanian alphabet. Botushali (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

If you don't understand what I'm saying you probably shouldn't be involved in such areas in Wikipedia regarding any nation. --Antondimak (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Nobody understands what you’re saying. Botushali (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I doubt it's nobody. The ones who don't should probably not be involved in this discussion. I'm always open to help with anything specific, it's not like I'm a professional teacher and can express everything perfectly so the burden isn't on the readers. --Antondimak (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

If you want to suggest that the Albanian ethnogenesis happened 1000 years later than it did, you will have to do so at the relevant article first. Alltan (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not attempting some grand change of any precedent here. I don't have the time to do that. I just mentioned some general information when it came to a specific instance. If there is ever an RFC about it I would like to be notified but I'm not going to start it. By the way this article doesn't contradict anything about what I'm saying. It doesn't use the word "ethnogenesis", and in the way that I'm using it here at least (you can give it any other meaning you want) it happened in the 19th century. Before that the specific characteristics that would form the basis of the nation existed in the area for a few millennia, not 1000 years. Nothing groundbreaking happened 1000 years ago related to the Albanians, it just happens to be the date of the first source we can semi-cleanly associate with the modern nation. We most likely have earlier sources about their predecessors, we just can't know which one matches. --Antondimak (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive edits againgst wp:BRD

Botushali needs to explain why he changed the latest stable version [[9]] as was last editted by Ktrimi991 [[10]] and stayed for months (=stable version).Alexikoua (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

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)