User talk:Agelarakis

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crete, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elysian fields (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Logothetes ton agelon
Hello! If you have a reliable source citing the existence of αγελάρης as a shorthand variant for the λογοθέτης τῶν ἀγελῶν, please bring it forward. Otherwise please refrain from re-adding the term to the relevant article, as I for one have been unable to corroborate such a usage in relevant material. As far as I could determine, the only occurrences of the term in Byzantine times are as a family surname, not as an office. Cheers, --Constantine  ✍  20:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello back dear Constantine, Thank you for your message and inquiry, although may I suggest it felt like a directive. Please be kind to identity your title and function within Wikipedia. Also let me assure you that like many people and professionals around the world I too aim, where appropriate to substantiate, to update and better this wonderful tool and resource Wikipedia available to serve the public without any borders. Through the vast records of Wikipedia there are many areas that need further substantiation or cross referencing, while they offer nevertheless plenty of data and fertile an environment for information and discussion. Hence, Wikipedia is considered by its global users not as a static or rigid body of data, like an old fashion hard copy encyclopedia, but as a corporeal body of a living and evolving library. May we therefore be allowed to offer supplamentary-auxiliary data to the readers (yet not misleading), that are duly retrieved from the non-fictitious domains of the oral tradition and of ongoing research aspects of the historical record? The name Αγελάρης is part of the ~/< 4% of Greek family names derived from the Byzantine title of a family ancestor like Λογοθέτης, Οικονόμου, Πριμικέρης, Τσαούσης, etc. As the ancient Lacedaimonan title Αγέλαρχος, the Αγελάρης was the Late Byzantine common people's "καθομιλουμένη" expression, for Λογοθέτης Αγελών. Many thanks Anagnostis Agelarakis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.43.203 (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but in order to include this in the article, we need a reliable source. Αγελάρης can equally well come from αγέλη plain and simple, without reference to the Byzantine office, and as I wrote, having searched in several specialist books dealing with Byzantine administration and titles, I have found no reference to it at all. Whether it feels like a directive or not, verifiability and no original research are cornerstones of this project, so an "obvious" conclusion from oral tradition is actually not admissible. Regards, Constantine  ✍  07:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Constantine You have not identified your title and function in Wikipedia. Are you a byzantinologist and if yes of what particular time period of the Byzantine empire and in what particular domain?. Are you the "owner " of this public commons wikipedia article? The logothete agelon was indeed responsible for the agéles, αγέλες ( αγέλη in singular), of horses for the Byzantine military (and not only of the horses in fact); from the ιπποφορβεία to the μιτάτα including all the administrative and logistical responsibilities. So the etymology argument you present above is in support of the function and title of αγελάρης in post 10th c. Byzantine chronological contexts, and not against it! Further, on a most significant aspect of method and theory issues regarding Wikipedia guidelines, how can one particulaly as yourself who claims to be a scholalry guardian for this Wikipedia article nullify as you state the importance of "original research" in favor of "verifiability"? The two are not mutually exclusive at all but clearly, closely, interlinked in favor of historic and scientific truth. I believe you should immediately reevaluate your point of view ! Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.43.203 (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears you have mistaken Wikipedia for something it is not. I have no official "title and function", and these things are mostly irrelevant in Wikipedia, the "encyclopedia anyone can edit". That being said, in order for it not to be anarchic, Wikipedia has some core policies, and the links I gave above are not my idea, they are this project's fundamental guidelines. Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed journal, not a blog, not a tribunal for anyone's views and ideas. It is an attempt to create an encyclopedia, and that means to compile knowledge provided by others, chiefly scholars and experts in the field, not to try and put our own ideas or interpretations forward, no matter what our qualifications. To make it simple, if I were a Byzantinist, again I would be prohibited from engaging in original research on Wikipedia. I'd have to have a paper or book published, get reviews, and then I could add stuff from it here, provided I maintained the neutral point of view policy, mentioned any counter-arguments if they exist, and not use my edits simply to promote myself and my book.
 * Now, as for "agelares", I have told you already that there is no evidence in the books I checked (and which I used to write this and dozens of other Byzantine administrative articles) for its use. Even in Guilland, who lists just about every variation ever used for the titles, it is absent. From this, as well as the gist of your own replies, the identification of "agelares" with the "logothetes ton agelon" seems to be your own personal opinion based on the similarity of the names. This is simply not good enough, not only because it is original research, but because there appears to be no contemporary evidence to back it up. For instance, the use of the shorthand "genikos" for the "logothetes tou genikou" is well-known and well-attested, but this is not the case here. If what "seems reasonable to suppose" flies in the face of available evidence, unless you have a good primary or secondary source I don't know of, is not simply original research, it is wrong and must be removed. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  06:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Constantine, thank you for your reply. It's interesting to read. May I point out that in your response, the argument about what Wikipedia is or is nor, is a circular argument that self-nullifies. You explicitly state that "..it is not a peer-reviewed journal..", etc., yet in the entirety of your message you indicate that in effect it is, as it should receive data only after processes that strictly follow a peer review process. Further, as the majority of contributors to the encyclopedia are specialists or experst on a particular subject matter, they follow the proper decorum of academic etiquette of no self-promotion and the "..neutral position..". Yet it is a professional responsibility and an ethical one to share where pertinent and appropriate with colleagues and the public both substantiated data and clusters of reasonable information and data the result of completed and ongoing analysis and research. History at large and historical records in particular are to be interpreted and explained. They and not to be a static body of information that was handed to us, inherited from the past or compiled in various forms by later authors. A responsible and sophisticated scholar of history is oblidged to carefully tap into the existing-inherited historical records always searching for new data, particulalry for the unrecorded circunstances, events and conditions (and there is a plethora of those) through additional analysis, comparison and juxtaposition and by incorporating data of recently completed and ongoing research in the interdisciplinary domains of the humanities, art history, the social and natural sciences. Otherwise we would remain at a position of stasis. Therefore, we need to reevaluate, to reassess, to rethink, to recompare, etc., the system of data we have in order to reach better and more interdisciplinary based results. This we must do, and thus we also must inform the public, insead of rigidly and under the mask of supposed neutrality hinder or delay change. Please also consider that oral history and ethnohistoric research is a component of history and historical records and it should not be neglected or avoided in carrying out historical analysis. And, this is exactly what is the case with the adding of the single work Αγελάρης in the existing text. Finally, a blanket statement such as that of your last sentence is rather accusatory and I believe unfair. It indirectly assumes inexperience and nainite on the side of the undersigned and thus unavoidably projects certain properties, that may relate to the character, the intellectual capacity level, if not of an adopted warped ethical agenda of self-promotion(??) to the undersigned, which are undeserved. Thank you. Anagnostis P. Agelarakis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.43.203 (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but all this verbiage does not change by one iota the fact that this appears to be your personal interpretation, and per the core policies of WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR, I simply cannot allow it. Peer-reviewed journals are allowed to acknowledge and certify new research on their own, we in WP are not, period. Unless it comes from a WP:RS, a statement it can and should be removed if its accuracy is suspect. And unless you can point me to a primary source which verifies said usage, then this is merely speculation on your part and not research at all. Constantine  ✍  18:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I would not waist any additional valuable time to address your continued inquiries smeared with an undignified and completely unprofessional tone; apparently you have not searched well enough this matter in the available historiographic sources of Eastern Thrace regarding the etymology of αγελάρης.