Talk:Jean-François Champollion

Languages spoken by Champollion

The languages he is listed as speaking appear somewhat suspect. Champollion studied the middle east, and would have had little reason (and less opportunity) to "master" a language as sparsely taught as Chinese. I am unable to check the source for this statement. The French page lists only Amharic, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Coptic, French and Latin. I think it judicious to remove Chinese. The best non-Wiki source I can come up with online only mentions him "attempting" to learn Chinese.Szfski (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Champollion studied chinese, I confirm. A egyptolog, Richard Lebeau, said that on the french radio show "2000 ans d'histoire". --83.156.125.158 (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've got a book titled "Gods, Graves, and Scholars" by C.W. Ceram that contains a section on Champollion, in which it says ...studied Sanskrit, Arabic, and Persian. in sum, he immersed himself in all the oriental languages, laying the groundwork for and understanding of their idiomatic developments. Meanwhile he wrote to his brother asking for a Chinese grammar, "for amusement," as he put it. The book has a lot of information about him that isn't present in the article, and I plan on adding some of it later. The2crowrox (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV - Champollion, Young, and the Rosetta Stone

The section of this article on the Egpytian hieroglyphics (Rosetta Stone) is biased. It consists entirely of two paragraphs of roughly equal size (both are 12 lines long). The first paragraph is concerned almost entirely with the work of Thomas Young, with a brief mention that Young himself based his work on the work of another previous researcher, Akerblad. The second paragraph discusses the conflict between Champollion and Young over whether Young gets credit for Champollion's work. It only briefly mentions that facts that Champollion completely worked out the grammar of the Egyptian hieroglyphics and published his work. It does not discuss his work in any other way - it focuses entirely on Young's effort to get credit and Champollion's opposition to that effort.

These two paragraphs are the entire discusion in this article about Champollion's work on the Egyptian hieroglyphics and the Rosetta Stone, apart from the brief introduction of this article (which is also partly about Young and even has a long list of other early Egypt researchers). (The "Franco-Tuscan Expedition" section of this article discusses a later visit in 1828 by Champollion to Egypt, but again does not discuss his seminal work on deciphering hieroglyphs).The Rosetta Stone translation is what Champollion is perhaps best remembered today for. His work on the Rosetta Stone is and was universally recognized and applauded - even by Young himself (as this article briefly mentions). Why is this article about Champollion concerned almost entirely with Thomas Young? Why is there only the briefest of mentions about what Champollion himself did? After all, there is a complete (not stub) wikipedia article on Young that details Young's work. This is the article about Champollion. I believe this article as written gives Champollion the least amount of credit possible (while still managing to credit him at all) and was written or edited by someone who clearly favors Young. In other words, it is biased, NPOV, and wikipedia should not used as a platform for a Young supporter to argue his case. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of established facts. In this case, the established fact (which even Young applauded, as stated above) is that Champollion was the first individual who completely worked out the Egyptian hieroglyphics. In this article, this important fact is only briefly mentioned, buried amongst 24 lines of discussion about Young and Young's efforts to get credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.196.157 (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly my point, reading this article, somebody can think Champollion did absolutely nothing by himself, just taking Young's previous works, who exactly did the same of others' works. Quite astonishing to read a so biased article. His BBC description is better than this article. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/champollion_jean.shtml 90.9.159.52 (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

        204.185.86.249 (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Love Ya204.185.86.249 (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Henry Rawlinson should be mentioned or linked to

The other big decipherer of the age was Sir Henry Rawlinson, 1st Baronet (1810–1895), a Brit, who did most of the deciphering of the Cuneiform languages. His Rosetta Stone was the Inscription of Darius at Behistun in Persia (Iran). Someone should put this in the article because Rawlison's successes were based on the earlier successes of Champollion ( ironic given that most likely, Cuneiform is the older of the two ). But you have to find some sources in print to back it up. Rawlinson was more well-rounded : he lived until 85 because he was also a physically-fit soldier. Still, without all of Champollion's devoted scholarship (especially the Chinese), Rawlinson probably couldn't have figured it out. Neither decipherment-set was a one-man thing, but if it was, it would be these two guys.

One of the key things about Champollion, and about geniuses in general, was his eccentricity or craziness. Champollion was like a nutty professor. To let him come across as a stern, level-headed Napoleon would be a disservice to eccentrics/crazy people everywhere, and via their great contributions to mankind, a disservice to humans everywhere. If Champollion was alive today, it's likely Big Pharma would medicate the genius and the contribution right out of him. That's what greed gets you.

There are just so many biographies of Champollion, on every year, it seems. But of Rawlinson, there are very few. I think it's because Egyptian is more beautiful than the ugly Cuneiform, sort of a reflection of the age-old Romance/Germanic gap.

All the texts now known of and readable are not very well appeciated or understood today, but at least Champollion is a person whose life and ways are worth a few more words than those here.

Dwarfkingdom (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jean-François Champollion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 15:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 15:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This excellent article lacks citations at several points (see below) but once that is remedied GA status is assured. Indeed, the article has many of the characteristics of an FA.

There is a problem – or "issue" as we must now say – over WP:RETAIN. The earliest versions where it is possible to say whether BrEng or AmEng is used use the former. I think this should be addressed on the article talk page rather than here, and have put a note there suggesting how the matter can be regularised. Assuming (safely enough, I feel) that we can settle on AmEng for the whole article there are two BrEng hangovers (a "travelled" and an "honour" that want Americanising.

A few preliminary comments:

• Upbringing and education
  • In the caption of the Rosetta Stone picture the absence of a definite article before "British Museum" looks distinctly odd.
  • The last sentence of the second para could do with a citation.
• Political trouble during the Napoleonic Wars
  • "eligible for the draft" – I assume this means liable to conscription for compulsory military service, but the phrase is not in use everywhere and could helpfully be clarified, here and below.
  • "hoisted the tricolore" – perhaps a blue link?
• Family life and later career
  • "(1824–1889)" – the MoS would have us use the form (1824–89).
  • I notice you don't hyphenate "well-to-do" but earlier you rather unexpectedly hyphenate "well off"
  • Last paragraph: "the King" or "the king"? – we have both.
• Deciphering the Egyptian hieroglyphs
  • "Kircher had, however as the first suggested that modern Coptic was a degenerate form" – I can't get this to work
  • "catalogue of hieroglyphs" – assuming (as above) we are going to standardise on American spelling for the article, ought this to be "catalog"?
• Rivalry with Thomas Young
  • "favourable" – another Anglicism
  • The third, fourth and last paragraphs of this section all end with an uncited sentence.
• Names of rulers
  • The first, third and last paragraphs are without citations.
• Letter to Dacier
  • Second paragraph lacks citations.
• Reactions to the decipherment
  • "later that fall" – the MoS bids us avoid seasons, as they can confuse readers in the opposite hemisphere; a month is safer.
  • "Champollion's recognized" – a word missing or an unwanted possessive.
  • "catholic church" – lower case looks odd
  • "church sanctioned" – hyphen wanted?
• The Précis
  • "dedicated to and expended by" – does "expended" mean "funded", here?
  • "King Louis XVIII" – why blue link him here rather than at first mention, in the Family life section?
  • "in 1828, a year before his death, Young was appointed to the French Institute of the Sciences by Champollion's support" – citation wanted.
• Franco-Tuscan Expedition
  • "Ironically he received this news" – WP:EDITORIAL
  • Eighth paragraph – blue link to Egypt should be removed
  • "December 6" – earlier we use d-m-y
• Death
  • Sir George Lewis – we ought to be consistent about whether the title is within the piping as here or outside it as with Sir Peter Le Page Renouf. The former is more work for the editor, but easier on the reader's eye, I have found.
  • "a priori" – better to italicise, I think
• Bibliography
  • Inconsistently gives or doesn't give ISBNs/OCLCs.
• Duplicate links
  • Joseph Fourier, Johan David Åkerblad, Saqqara, Muhammad Ali Pasha (twice), Valley of the Kings, Khedive, Sir Peter Le Page Renouf, and Academy of Inscriptions and Letters.
• Linking to disambiguation page:
  • Thutmose

Most of these are minor matters, but the sporadic absence of citations needs to be addressed. I'm putting the review on hold meanwhile. – Tim riley talk 08:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for these helpful comments. I will address some today and tomorrow, but am traveling over the middle of the week and so will likely not be able to finish untill next weekend. I hope that is ok. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Fine with me. No hurry at all. Tim riley talk 16:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• The missing citations are the result of another editor recently splitting some full paragraphs with citation at the end into short ones without. So it should be easy to fix, either by putting the paragraphs back together or by simply duplicating the citations.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• As for Engvar I am agnostic, I would not be surprised to be told I use exactly half of each variant. I will try to settle on AmEng, and thank you for pointing out which spellings need to be changed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If you're OK with AmEng I'll do the honours - dammit, I mean the honors. Tim riley talk 16:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be grateful for that, as well as any other of the minor fixes you would help me in carrying out.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

A pleasure. I'll do it tomorrow morning when England is having breakfast and America is still sleeping, thus avoiding edit conflicts such as the one I nearly perpetrated just now. Tim riley talk 17:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Revert anything you dislike, of course. Tim riley talk 07:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding Sir George Lewis and Sir Peter Le Plage Renouf, the odd thing is that the former is located at Sir George Cornewall Lewis, 2nd Baronet while the latter is at Peter le Page Renouf plain and simple. I don't entirely understand why some people apparently get their titles included in the article of the name and others don't. I'll chalk it up to something to do with the finer points of British class society.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• The link to the Thutmose disambiguation page is intentional here in fact, since it is the name, not any of its specific holders that is meant, and the disambiguation page gives the meaning of the name.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Tim riley:, I think I have taken care of the missing citations, if you would care to take a look and see if there are any other issues to be fixed, that would be great.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• • Lovely! Ref 4 could perhaps use a tweak to make it the same "sfn" format as the others, but I leave that to you. Otherwise all now fine.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This is a most impressive article, and I greatly enjoyed reviewing it. I learned a lot, too. If you take the article on to PR or FAC please give me a nod. Meanwhile, would you be so kind as to look in at the article talk page and back me up on standardising on AmEng? At the moment I'm a one-person consensus. – Tim riley talk 19:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Done and done. Thanks a lot for the review!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way I don't take articles to FAC unless someone else offers to be co-nom responsible for MOS and prose issues. I am good at researching content, but I find the finer details required for FAC to be tedious. So if you or anyone else is interested in nominating it I would be supportive as long as I can focus on sourcing and content and someone else focuses on the formalities.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Engvar

There is a problem of WP:ENGVAR with the present text. Wikipedia requires the variant of English used in an article to be that which was first established (WP:RETAIN) unless (my italics) there is a consensus to the contrary. The earliest versions where it was possible to say whether BrEng or AmEng is used use the former, but the article has been greatly expanded since then, mostly in AmEng. I suggest the most painless way to comply with WP's rules is to establish a consensus here for AmEng for the article. Comments, please, from interested editors. – Tim riley talk 07:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I,being the major contributor to the article, fully support using here AmEng henceforth.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible image for the article

I found a copy of Giuseppe Angelelli's group portrait of the Franco-Tuscan Expedition and uploaded it to Commons. I'm not sure if it can fit in here, given that it needs to be large-sized to be really legible and that the relevant area of the article has a high concentration of images, but I wanted to point out that it's available. A. Parrot (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

the Ultras?

"the chicanery of the Ultras kept him struggling to maintain his job"

Who are the "Ultras"?

The article previously mentions "ultra-roylaists", but as his allies and benefactors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CA10:18A0:1438:8F46:CF28:6DD1 (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

"xšāyaθiya" is Old Persian, as mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah Could somebody add this info to the article in an appropriate way?213.216.127.96 (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)