Talk:Theodore Kavalliotis

Was Kavalliotis a Northernepirote?

Dunno, let's see: [1] Guildenrich (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm, what exactly is your point with that link? Also, placing NPOV and non-RS tags on an article which to 99% you have created and stands practically unaltered in content from your version, and where the disputed statements are not affected by said sources, is a really odd thing to do just to prove a point. If you dispute one statement or category, you do not dismiss the whole article. Now, if your point is that he was Albanian, well, he was born in Albania, he spoke Albanian, but that does not make him Albanian as in "ethnic Albanian". He was an educated Vlach, and these people were usually to a larger or lesser extent hellenized, since education was in Greek hands. Whether he was a "Northern Epirote" as in an ethnic Greek from southern Albania, well I for one wouldn't use that tag, which is mostly a 20th-century term. Constantine ✍ 21:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Alexikoua the well-wisher is a vicious reverter, that would make any honest Wikipedian loose his/her temper. Guildenrich (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You have right Kavalliotis wasn't a Northern Epirote because he was born in Kavala. Guild. gave the source himself [[2]]. No wonder one of the central streets of Kavala bears his name.Alexikoua (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering about his surname... However this would seem to suggest that he was indeed from Moschopolis, so what's the deal? Perhaps his family was from Moschopolis? Also, it is notable that the same book, page 48, states that "it is not known if Kavalliotis came from a Greek or an Aromanian family, although it is certain that he grew up in an Aromanian environment." It should be also mentioned that Kavalliotis' dictionary was actually intended not to promote the Albanian or Aromanian languages, but rather help spread the hellenization of the local peoples ([3], [4], [5]). Constantine ✍ 13:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

PS, Guildenrich, I am not here to take anyone's side, I am interested in a factual representation of the subject. I know Alexis and although I may sometimes disagree with him and his POV, I have not known him to falsify or cherry-pick sources to support a particular POV, something which you seem to be doing in the last few of your articles I've come across. Be advised that in this way, you are harming your own cause more than anyone else can... Constantine ✍ 13:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute on where Kavallioti was born. Some Kavaliotes claim that he is probably one of them [[6]].Alexikoua (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Vlahoi.net, although not a academic source points Kavala too [[7]]. Actually when someone jut says: 'Kavaliotis of Moscopole', this does not necessarily mean he was born there. However, the fact is that he became a famous scholar in the Arumanian metropolis.Alexikoua (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

He is not one of the major. K. is remembered ONLY because he published the vocabulary. Guildenrich (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is exactly said 'leading light of the Greek scholarly world'. Actually he is known as professor and director of the 'Nea Akadimia'. The dictionary, which aimed at the Hellenization of the non Greek speaking Balkan populations, is just one of his works.Alexikoua (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Leading light is rather poetic, but doesn't belong here. You see, your English is not very good, it is fourth grade at best. Kavalliotis wrote his "Protopeiria" to help little children; Daniel Moschopolites, he was the one trying to hellenize Albanians, Bulgarians and Vlachs! Or as we call him, he was a Grekoman. The sources you use are a f*ucking disgrace. Kavalliotis is remembered only because of the trilingual vocabulary. If it wasn't for it, he would be forgotten, like many others. Guildenrich (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox

Someone is going going around removing the words "Greek Orthodox", with "Eastern Orthodox" for the usual reasons. Yet, this is clearly wrong in this case. All these guys belonged to the Greek Orthodox Church. Athenean (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion it should be Orthodox Church, plain and simple. That's how the name of the article is. Saying Aromanian Greek Orthodox may mislead the reader. But no big deal, you can keep for now Greek Orthodox Church, because the knowledgable reader will know that they were used symultaneously during that time, at least in Moscopole. However, in the future it will need to be changed to the article's name. I entered Eastern Orthodox Church because to me it is NPOV, but it would be better to point to Orthodox Church and just say Christian Orthodox priest. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 19:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact the right term is Greek Orthodox. The book you brought confirms this too: [[8]] 'prifter Greko-Ortodokse'. I don't see a reason why this should be replaced since plenty of sources confirm this... and he belonged to a Greek speaking church, as the rest of Moscopole at 18th century. On the other hand the general term 'Eastern Orthodox' is misleading.Alexikoua (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Moreover the name of the article is Greek Orthodox Church.Alexikoua (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua, let's not fool one another. The Greek Orthodox Church has a different article from the Orthodox Church. Btw I made this edit there. The Albanian Autocephalous Church is just not a Greek Orthodox Church, and I believe you're smarter than Sthenel, who reverted my edit [9]. Let's make some constructive edits there as well please. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 20:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

About "prifter greko-ortodokse". You are referring to page 275 correct? I don't disagree that Greek Orthodox was synonym of plain Orthodox at that time. You know what it's ok. At that time, it was a synonym, so it's Ok. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 20:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

Sulmues, in case you don't explain why Greek language shouldn't be mentioned as Greek, I'm sorry but this should change. Simply saying 'Romaic' is misleading for the reader. And Romaic and Greek leads to the same article. Alexikoua (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Might be, and I entered in parenthesis (modern Greek), but I would keep Romaic as it is the transliteration from Greek of the dictionary itself. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 22:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. So what? All you're doing is confusing our readers. Athenean (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So what? and transliteration for Αλβανιτικά is Arvanitika, that doesn't prove something. I would appreciate if initiate a discussion before reverting.Alexikoua (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the IP edit satisfies everyone. If not, Modern Greek, with a reference to explain Romaic transliteration might also do. And you are right about Arvanitica. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 22:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP editor is possibly a sock. Too experienced. Reverted his last two edits [10]. Which removed valid references. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 22:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The specific ip editor edits unlogged some 2 years now. Morevoer, someone that disagrees with us doesn't mean that he is vandal or sock.Alexikoua (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know him, although he keeps saying I do. Asked for page protection because he is removing references. Athenean that edit is shameful. We've been over and over Kavallioti's origin, so when an experienced user such as the IP editor removes references there will be a flag. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 23:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

'Well, I don't know him, although he keeps saying I do' what a joker...moscopole, dimale, byllis, perendi etc etc...ring a bell??87.202.28.207 (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So how am I supposed to know that you are the same person? --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 23:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

always assume it's me...87.202.28.207 (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way he was either Vlach or Greek by origin. There is also a possibility that he was from Kavala. Alexikoua (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but I still need to see a reference that he was a Greek. Please reference that possibility if you find anything. And you didn't react to a vandalism to remove the references that he was an Aromanian. Now the fact that he might have been born in Kavala doesn't mean he was a Greek. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 13:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

kahl mentions it now piss off the reference wasnt removed for that reason87.202.14.254 (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

i love how sulmues can show extremely good faith when it comes to an article like perendi but extremely bad faith when it comes to kavalliotis...85.73.220.95 (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You reverted me as well there. And I fail to understand why you have to insult me and also why you have to remove the reference that Kavallioti was an Aromanian. Lloshi has written three pages on him. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 14:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

...wow...talk about acting stupid on purpose85.73.220.95 (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop insulting. Lloshi doesn't say he is Greek. He says Kavallioti was Aromanian, so I suggest that we leave your reference, but we also add that other authors say that he was simply Aromanian and reference Lloshi. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 14:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

are you kidding me my bestest man...?? is there a language barrier between us?85.73.220.95 (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Kavala hasn't Aromanians as far I know (vlahoi.net says that he isn't Aromanian). As per bibliography he was either hellenized Vlach, or Greek. Alexikoua (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

sulmues doesnt understand something simple...kahl mentions both possibilities: vlach, greek...the fact that another source considers only one possibility doesnt concern us...also more important are there any serious sources that mention kavala as kavalliotis' birthplace? sathas says so but im not inclined to trust him completely...kahl mentions moscopole and doesnt seem to consider the possibility of kavala perhaps his source does85.73.220.95 (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't speak Greek so I cannot check vlahoi, and sincerely that website wouldn't qualify as a secondary source. I am bringing one of the best secondary sources on Kavallioti: Xhevat Lloshi, who has studied the 17th 18th writers in detail. He dedicates three full pages to Kavallioti. He clearly says that Kavallioti was an Aromanian with a Greek education rejecting claims of Albanian scholars, who say that Kavallioti was Albanian. As far as Kavala not having Aromanians, the Vlach are found in the whole Balkans. @IP editor: It concerns me that my source eliminates the possibility that Kavallioti was a Greek. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 15:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

i have a lot of sources eliminating the possibility that albanians have any connection to illyrians too...but that view is also included in the articles. also i have a lot of state of the art most up to date sources that ancient macedonian is nothing but a greek dialect...but the article doesnt state only that possibility it includes other views too...'excellent source" (which lloshi is) doesnt mean "only source"85.73.220.95 (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but why do you keep removing that source though? You also say his compatriot in the article, clearly referring that he was a Greek. [11]. You are pushing your POV and continuing to be disruptive. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 15:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if he was a hellenized Vlach he was considered compatriot. Alexikoua (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

A hellenized Vlach means a Greek. In the lede we have that we don't know if he was a Greek or an Aromanian, and then we say "actually he was a Greek". Nope, this is POV. --Sulmues (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

He was either a Helenized Vlach or a Greek (of Greek origin). Suppose that's what you mean Aromanian.Alexikoua (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, he was simply an Aromanian, not Hellenized, not Greek, not of Greek origin. Having studied in Greece, doesn't make you a Greek, it doesn't make you hellenized either. That's what Lloshi says. In addition, Lloshi says that Kavallioti was no Albanian either. Your sentence above shows me that you don't understand what the Aromanians are. --Sulmues (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Studied in Greece? There was no Greece that time. Seems you completely misinterpret Lloshi. Since we agree that he wasn't Albanian the Albanian alt. name simply needs to go.Alexikoua (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

so because sulmues cant understand a SIMPLE THING that kahl mentioned both possibilities so a new source was unneeded we now have this article protected and i cant readd the extra content great...87.202.23.90 (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not me not understanding. It's that you are refractarian to grasping a single concept even after you were blocked: Lloshi thinks that he is Aromanian. Kahl has no clue (he says either this or that). Why remove a great scholar such as Lloshi who does a much better research, as compared to Kahl who says 1 sentence? --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Have u a link to Kahl?Alexikoua (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Death

We have two sources (Dako and Jacque) saying that he was killed by muleteers. The same fate did not occur to Dhaskal Todri, his alumnus. This is well accepted. I can't seem to find a third source, should it be needed, which would be Qafzezi, one of the best scholars on Voskopoje. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Kristo Dako and Edwin Jacques are not reliable sources. How many times do we have to go over this? Jacques is not a historian and his book is pseudo-history. Dako is an ultranationalist and the fact that he is from 1919 says it all as far as I'm concerned. Athenean (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Who told you that Dako is an ultra nationalist Athenean? And why is he not a reliable source? The fact that Jacques is not a historian doesn't make him unreliable either. Bring them both to WP:RS, rather than taking out sources. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

They are both pseudo-historians and unreliable as sources, and you know this full well. Especially regarding Jacques, we have been over it 100 times already. And don't even get me started on Dako. By the way, it's WP:RSN, not WP:RS. If you think they are reliable, then YOU take them to WP:RSN. I can't be bothered to waste my time with this nonsense. Athenean (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The event is completely out of reality: 1.the source is non rs (Daco is offline) too as stated multiple times in past (Torjan War fairytales). 2. Why would he like to go to Elbasan and create a printhouse there, since Moscopole that time hadn't a printhouse (it was destroyed at 1769/70? [[12]]). Also according to Kekridis and Peyfuss he died aged 71 from physical reasons.Alexikoua (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

So write that down and then I'll write that according to other scholars he died when killed from muleteers. Why should Kekridis and Peyfuss know more than Dako, Qafzezi and Jacques? --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dako and Jacques aren't "scholars". If anyone thinks Dako and Jacques are reliable sources, they really need to read WP:RS again. And again and again, as many times as necessary until they understand it. Athenean (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Dako opened the first female high school in Albania and was its director in early 20th century. Jacques qualifies as a reliable source as he well sources his writings. You don't need to have anything hung up as a certificate to be considered a reliable source. Bring them to WP:RS. Simply removing material when you don't bring the alternative is not enriching an article. --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding unreliable, unscholarly sources and then edit-warring over them is WP:TE. You still have no idea what a reliable source is. The fact that you think Dako is a reliable source because he was a high school principal says it all. Athenean (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually your tag teaming has produced three reverts, to which I have responded with three other reverts. Any other revert on your side will be reported as a breach of the 3RR. --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Being a high school principal when in a country there is no university automatically makes you a scholar, use some common sense. There are now 30 universities in Albania, back then there were 5 high schools. Wouldn't you not consider a rector a scholar now? Well, back then he was the equivalent of a provost. --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh-oh, you have stopped indenting your comments. We know what that means. You obviously have no idea what a "scholar" is. And the only one in danger of breaching 3RR is you, so I wouldn't make threats if I were you. Athenean (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

All I am saying is: bring the sources to support that he died from other reasons and then we talk. It looks just like we are reading different books. Let's just compare them, but you gotta bring them here first. Removing my content that specifies how he died is disruptive and doesn't enrich the article.--Sulmues ^(talk) 20:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually 'all' the mainstream bibliography (Papacostea, Peyfuss) mentions that he was a 'Protopappas' and devoted to the church his last years [[13]] p. 68 and died from physical reasons. This 'Elbasan campaing nonsense' is completely unhistorical (Sulmues I'm sorry but you insist again about book that sees Albanians in the Trojan War).Alexikoua (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand Greek, but I have faith. Does Papacostea reference to anything? What about Peyfuss? Again these are historians disagreeing with one another. --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) No, all that's going is that you still have no idea what a reliable source is. You just don't get, or don't want to get it. If you think that 19th century high school principals qualify as "scholars", you have obviously no idea what a scholar is. Since I can't be bothered to explain to you what a scholar is (and you probably wouldn't understand anyway), there is no point in continuing this conversation with you. Athenean (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:RS all majority and significant minority views should be included and that is in the first sentence of the policy. --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Good, now read the rest of WP:RS (until you understand it). Athenean (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

@Sulmues: Peyfuss and Kekridis are top graded academic material, on the other hand Jacques is pure propaganda, it's simply wp:rs issue.Alexikoua (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't find Qafzezi, so I'll let this rest. Removed Jacque and Dako. --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope to never again see Dako and Jacques used as sources. The mere fact that Jacques talks of Albanian participation in the Trojan War speaks for itself. I hope I'm clear. Athenean (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson said once something about dictionaries: "Dictionaries are like clocks: the best of them is not completely correct, and the worse is better than nothing". Sources are like dictionaries and clocks: in Wikipedia we use sources until a better one comes along. If everyone was like you, they'd not write anything on wikipedia, but would just wait until people (like me or Alexi) wrote something, so that you could take care of the comas. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll help you with the "comas" when you use Jacques to create Albanian participation during the Trojan War. Athenean (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What page is it, lol... --Sulmues ^(talk) 22:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)