Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kyriakos Pittakis/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 July 2023 [1].

Kyriakos Pittakis

edit
Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following my previous nomination of Panagiotis Kavvadias, this article is about another Ephor General of Greece. Where Kavvadias was a bureaucrat, professionaliser and master politician, Pittakis... wasn't. This story involves revolution, forgery, academic intrigue and at least two cases where Pittakis was almost killed by the ancient monuments he obsessively loved.

As with Kavvadias, Pittakis is not a wonderfully documented subject: barring a few book chapters, very few biographical works have been written about him. His early life in particular is obscure, thanks in part to his very ordinary origins, which put him into contrast (and sometimes conflict) with the well-to-do archaeologists that often surrounded him. The article has previously undergone a GAR by User:Mike Christie, who deserves much credit for the thoughtful comments and advice that have helped to bring the article to its current state. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought at the GAN that this was a good candidate for FA. I will hold off till others have commented; please ping me if there's a threat of archiving this for lack of supports. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • When and where was File:Peytier_-_Mosque_in_the_Parthenon.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm getting a little confused with artworks: what exactly do we need to show to demonstrate PD-Art as far as Wikipedia is concerned? I'm not sure I could put my hands on a book showing the Mona Lisa from before the 1920s, but I assume we're happy to say that it was 'published' once it was made and displayed in public (or some point along that line?).
Painted in Greece before 1864 (Peytier's death), held by the National Bank of Athens (which stored/displayed a lot of Greece's 'treasures' in the 19th century), certainly published in a book by them in Greece in 1971. There's a page here which collates the images from that book, though I don't see any credible copyright claim (the one for the website, particularly the date, clearly can't apply to these images) or licensing info. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Swapped out for File:Lancelot Theodore Compte Turpin de Crissé - The Acropolis in Athens.jpg, which is dated 1804 and was definitely on public display in 1889. I think that's more straightforward, at least? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is slightly more complicated - see commons:Commons:Public_art_and_copyrights_in_the_US. Do you believe the display of this work was sufficient to qualify as publication given what's presented there? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The website has "He leaves this collection to the town of Angers where it is open to the public since 1889 at Hotel Pincé as Musée Turpin de Crissé.". As I see in on Commons, that's publication if "Publication requires placing the statue in a public location where people can make copies. Example: showing the statue in Golden Gate Park.".
To me, a public museum, in public ownership, crosses that bar; I understand the 'not published' criterion of "Placing a statue in a controlled environment where people can not make copies does not result in publication. Example: showing the statue in gallery that does not allow copying." to either refer to a gallery that specifically doesn't allow copying (which I don't think was really a concept that existed in 1889), or (for example) for it to have been sequestered in some aristocrat's house to which the public don't really have access.
Does that sound about right? To go back to the Mona Lisa example, that's in a very similar position: it's only ever been in a palace or a museum, and you've usually had to pay to see it, but that's fine; a place can be public and still charge a fee (like a public swimming pool). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, can I just confirm if we're GTG here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ling

edit
  • 10 instances of Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)[You can skip them if they are news articles...]
  • 3 instances of Missing ISBN
  • pagenum? Beresford 2016, p. n.53,  § Lingzhi (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for these. Beresford ref fixed, others in the works. It's not always straightforward to find ISBNs and ISSNS for older Greek works, but at least the books should (when I'm done) have either an ISBN, OCLC or OL (in descending order of whether one exists). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Lingzhi: I think this is now all sorted. Not all of the book sources have ISBNs, at least as far as I can tell, but they should all have either ISBN, OCLC or OL. All journals should have ISSN. Fixed a few minor things in the references as well. Let me know if I've missed anything. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma

edit

Planning to review this. —Kusma (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why "Kyriakos S. Pittakis"? Anything known about the "S"? None of the other Wikipedias have it (I am asking because a few years ago I managed to convince IPNI to fix an incorrect middle initial that was widely used in the literature).
  • In Dyson p. 74 I see no evidence that Pittakis met Byron in 1809-10; I would rather guess they met during the war?
    • Byron only actually visited Athens once (well, twice, but as a stop on the way out and the way back of the same trip), in 1809-10 (for which I'll find a source). I don't think Dyson mentioned that: honestly, I strongly suspect that's because Dyson is wrong and the two never actually met; their friendship is mentioned in a lot of bad sources but not a lot of good ones (in a similar way to the suggestion that he was born in Psyrri). Trying to thread the needle, I've reported it as "is said to have" to keep things objective and verifiable.
      • My point is that Dyson just says "Pittakis had been a friend of Byron and fought in the War of Independence", and that does not really support your "Pittakis is said to have met and befriended Lord Byron during the latter's visits to Athens in 1809–1810." You either need to cite a bad source (with appropriate caveats) or remove the claim about Athens 1809–1810. —Kusma (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have the Greek title/bibliographical data of Pittakis' publication of the Chronicle of Anthimos? It was apparently also printed in a book by Philadelpheus, see p. 57. In any case: is there more of an interesting story here?
  • One word to introduce the (oddly named from a modern point of view) Elgin marbles?
  • Archeological career: "Pittakis began to gather its archaeological artefacts" is "its" referring to "the Ottoman garrison" or to "Athens"?
    • Now "archaeological artefacts from around the city"
  • " legal, philological and architectural training were difficult for them to come by except in northern Europe" this is weird. Does this imply there was no architectural training in Italy or Austria, or that Greeks could not go there but usually went to Denmark or Sweden??
    • I've rephrased it: the source is in German, and I'm not sure I had it totally right the first time. We now have "medicine being a common field of study for Greek intellectuals of the time, who often sought education in Germany, where legal, philological and architectural training were difficult for them to come by". The source is specifically explaining why so many of the Greeks around King Otto's court were trained as doctors: because they were educated in Germany, and the German universities weren't educating Greek lawyers, philologists and architects. It's not a perfect source here, because Pittakis wasn't anywhere close to Otto, but I think it does help shed some light on why a would-be archaeologist studied medicine, which was rather confusing to me for a while. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might help to explain that Greece became a monarchy again in 1832?
  • "Modern scholarship has suggested that these were part of the shrine known as the Prytaneion, containing the sacred fire of Hestia seen as the heart of the political community, whose original location is lost." Is it the location of the political community or of the Prytaneion that is lost?
    • Slightly rephrased; now unambiguous, but I'm not sure it's particularly good. Suggestions most welcome. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Our article prytaneion makes it sound more like the seat of government than "the sacred fire of Hestia seen as the heart of the political community" does. Schmalz also describes it as a civic buiulding more than a temple. Perhaps just drop the sacred fire of Hestia so you can simplify? —Kusma (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm afraid I must slightly dissent from that article: the name and original concept of the Prytaneion refer to the fire, and its political/community functions follow from that. John Camp has in this book a nice quotation : "The Prytaneion in Athens, as in every Greek city, was in a sense the heart of the city, for it housed a hearth dedicated to Hestia where an eternal flame was kept burning." It's also important that the reader understands the link between Pittakis's find of a dedication to Hestia and the possible location of that temple. I've expanded slightly: Modern scholarship has suggested that these were part of the temple and civic building known as the Prytaneion, containing the sacred fire of Hestia seen as the heart of the political community. The original location of this structure, which served various public and political functions during the classical period, is no longer known. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More later! —Kusma (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Naval records: "on the invitation of King Otto, dominated Greek archaeology in the first years of the independent state" I throught the first years were the pre-monarchy years? (I should really read up on modern Greek history!)
    • You are quite right; now "in the early years of Otto's reign" (really, between 1832 and 1841, but that seems like an odd date range to include without contextualisation, and isn't strictly in the source cited.) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archaeological Society: "He began in the Erechtheion" try to de-convolute this sentence a bit
  • Mycenae before and after images would work better with the discussion of the Lion Gate than where they are now, but I guess image placement isn't easy to get right here.
    • Yes, it's difficult to get them near relevant material without crowding the page. I've opted to put them next to Iakovidis' judgements about Pittakis' work at Mycenae: as you say, perhaps not ideal, but I think probably the best compromise. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Skarlatos Vyzantios [el], who had briefly preceded Pittakis as secretary between 1851 and 1852, was re-elected on 30 June [O.S. 17 June] 1851, though Pittakis was returned to office in the society's elections of 23 September [O.S. 11 September] 1852" was he elected twice in 1851? Perhaps simplify.
  • "committee to report on the state of the Erechtheion" did that committee do anything interetsing?
    • It did, well, report on the state of the Erechtheion, but I suppose that depends on your definition of "interesting". I'm not sure I've seen any record of what it reported, sadly. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure it is worth telling the reader in so much detail who was on the committee if we don't know anything much about what it did. —Kusma (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Part of the rationale is that Efstratiadis is a significant supporting character in the second half or so of Pittakis' life, and it's interesting that they worked together twice (on that committee and on the Psoma House). I can see an argument for reducing it to "a five-member committee, which included Pittakis and Efstratiadis", but then Glarakis as president is reasonably notable (and his presence means that basically all of the Society's senior figures are on this committee, which says something about its importance to the Society), and two of other three are at least notable enough to have Wikipedia articles.
        In general, I'm cautious about withholding information from the reader: that feels like making a judgement about what the reader "needs" to know, and people come to articles with all sorts of needs and agendas that we can't possibly anticipate. I'll certainly look around to see if I can find out what the committee reported, which might justify placing a little more weight upon it. Otherwise, part of the answer might be to shift some of the names to their own articles. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        For topics well covered in the sources, we always have to make a judgement what to include and what not. But anyway, this is a very minor point. —Kusma (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the point's a good one: I've just moved the names of the architects to a footnote. Feels better for DUEWEIGHT, given that the main body text now only talks about the two characters already heavily involved, and one who feels obviously notable (the president). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More later. —Kusma (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • " to complete Ross's attempted demolition of the Parthenon mosque, which had been partially destroyed during the War of Independence" so Ross tried but failed? Or did Pittakis just continue Ross's work? You could also tell us when it was from (17th century?)
  • "During his time as Ephor General, Pittakis excavated on the island of Anafi, recording monuments and collecting inscriptions.[123] He also advocated for the demolition of the Frankish Tower" the stuff about Anafi seems to be the only thing not in Athens in the entire section? And do you really not know when in these 20 years he did this?
    • The source quote is He visited and recorded monuments and conducted excavations also in the province, such as Anaphe.It's cited to a Greek work; that in itself simply says "The archaeological interest in Anafi has a long history, almost from the foundation of the new Greek state, since L. Ross, but also K. Pittakis and A. Ragavis dealt with its antiquities." Not a lot to go on! Incidentally, not working outside Athens (except of course at Mycenae, and periodically on other islands) was pretty par for the course for Greek archaeologists of his day; Efstratiadis is noted as being a bit unusual for taking an interest in stuff going on outside the city, and the first big excavations outside Athens in Greece are probably Schliemann's in the 1870s. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy: Who are Paparzadakas and Petrakos and when did they write? Why does the praise come with names, but the criticism is in passive voice without named actors?
    • This is a really good point; I'll take a look and work out the best way to resolve. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK: both Papazarkadas and Petrakos are introduced further up as fairly major historians for Pittakis's work (Petrakos in particular is really the authority on all matters to do with the Archaeological Society). Both of the judgements attributed to them are highly subjective: Papazarkadas explicitly couches his as his own personal guesstimate (and it's arguably unfalsifiable anyway), and Petrakos's is a fairly straightforward matter of opinion: it's a significant opinion from a significant source, but I don't think we can couch it in Wikipedia's voice. However, all of the sources for the negative comments are not only reporting their own judgements, but saying that others have made the same judgements, so it would be wrong to imply that these views only belong to the authors themselves. I came into this one really wanting to "fix" it, but I think the current form is the best way to keep NPOV and clarity as to the strength of the views expressed. Given the above, what do you think? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Nationalism" really subordinate to "Legacy"? I think it could be promoted to its own section, or integrated better into "Legacy" (it isn't mentioned in the starting bit of the Legacy section)
  • "breaking inscriptions before sending them to him, so as to increase the payment Pittakis would receive for finding them" was he paid by number of inscriptions? Perhaps worth a footnote.
    • That's my reading of the source, but it doesn't explicitly any more than is in the article. I'll see if I can find a more general source about how Boeck paid his contributors, which might allow that footnote. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a good look and rephrased a little: I think it's clearer now? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote k Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς would look nicer without italics

I think my first pass is done. Thank you for another piece of amazing research! —Kusma (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

edit

Nothing from me about the content, which seems to my inexpert eye to be admirable. A few minor points about the prose:

  • "he was likely from a humble background" – if, as it seems, the article is in BrE, this is an unidiomatic construction: the normal BrE form here is "probably", rather than "likely" (why, I know not but there it is.)
  • I found your practice of giving the Greek terms in brackets after their English versions rather distracting and unnecessary. I have in mind such constructions as:
  • School of the Commons of Athens (Greek: Σχολή του Κοινού των Αθηνών)
  • Philomousos Hetaireia (Greek: Φιλόμουσος Εταιρεία, lit. 'Society of Lovers of the Muses',
  • Filiki Eteria (Greek: Φιλικὴ Ἑταιρεία, lit. 'Friendly Society')
  • Megali Idea (Greek: Μεγάλη Ιδέα, lit. Great Idea)
  • 'custodian of the antiquities in Athens' (Greek: ἐπιστάτης τῶν ἐν Ἀθήναις ἀρχαιοτήτων)
  • 'sub-ephor' (Greek: ὑποέφορος)
  • Excavation and Discovery of Antiquities (Εταιρεία περί ανασκαφής και ανακαλύψεως αρχαιοτήτων)
  • Archaeological Society of Athens (Εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογική Εταιρεία)
Taking an existing FA at random I looked at Vincent van Gogh, where the titles of his paintings are given in English with, generally, no mention of the French (or Dutch) titles. Thus, Wheatfield with Crows is given without any mention of Champ de blé aux corbeaux or Korenveld met kraaien. If you think any of your readers need to know, e.g., that the Greek for Archaeological Journal is Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς, it would, in my view, be preferable to put the Greek term in a footnote, so that anyone wishing to see the original can do so but other readers are not confronted with chunks of Greek script).
Hi Tim - thanks for reviewing. Taking this one first, the basic rationale is that some of these terms aren't common in English, and sometimes they're my own translation: Εταιρεία περί ανασκαφής και ανακαλύψεως αρχαιοτήτων and Σχολή του Κοινού των Αθηνών are examples, because none of the (comparatively few and comparatively information-poor) English-language sources on Pittakis mention them. Any reader interested in following up (or even verifying the existence of, in some cases) these concepts would need to do so from the Greek, not the English. In other cases, the English is not the generally-used version: so English-speaking academics generally talk about the AE, the Arch. Eph. or the Archaiologiki Efimeris rather than the Archaeological Journal: however, I think following that convention here would be a mistake from an accessibility point of view. As such, I think it's important for WP:VERIFIABILITY to have the 'real' name (which is Greek) in the article somewhere for at least most of them. Footnotes may be the way forward: what do you think? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Footnoting the Greek terms seems to me a good idea. Tim riley talk 11:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now done throughout. I've removed the Greek where the translated or transliterated term is in common English use, and retained in footnotes where not. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sister of Pittakis' wife" – this is what the current edition of Fowler says about possessives:
Names ending in -s. Use 's for the possessive case in names and surnames whenever possible; in other words, whenever you would tend to pronounce the possessive form of the name with an extra iz sound, e.g. Charles's brother, St James's Square, Thomas's niece, Zacharias's car.
On that basis the possessive of Pittakis would be Pittakis's, surely?
I generally use the classicising apostrophe for Greek names; in another article, I've changed that under (mild) protest, so I'll do the same here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 'return' of Classical Greek lands" – double quotes needed.
  • "He studied languages, Latin and medicine" – this reads as though Latin is not a language.
  • "appointed 'sub-ephor'" – double quotes wanted
  • "forcing Ross' resignation" – as with Pittakis's, above, the possessive form you need here is "Ross's".
  • "would have been reorganised such that Pittakis held responsibility" – a strange construction: "reorganised so that" would feel less awkward.
    • To me, so that implies that this was the purpose of the reorganisation, while such that only implies that it was among its consequences. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The use of "such" in a construction of this kind is unfamiliar to me, and I should have said it wasn't normal English had I not found in the OED one example from the 18th century and three from the 19th (none from the 20th or 21st) in which "such that" is in attributive use after a noun. One could, I suppose, extend that to include use after a verb, and if you wish to use "such" here I do not press my objection. I think it looks clunky, but it's your prose, after all, and not mine. Tim riley talk 11:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've reworked: "would have been reorganised, giving Pittakis responsibility for its excavation work while the philologist Ioannis Benthylos assumed charge of its academic works and the artist Athanasios Iatridis oversaw its technical work" UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From 1850, Pittakis undertook significant work in and around the Propylaia" – Plain Words says of "significant": This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'
  • "the artillery fired under the Venetian doge" – sounds a touch uncomfortable for the doge. Possibly "fired by the Venetian doge's forces" or something on those lines?

Those are my few quibbles; I hope they are helpful. – Tim riley talk 08:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. My comments, above, are on the prose, but so far as I am any judge, as one who knows nothing of the topic, I find the text convincing and a v. good read, balanced, and well and widely sourced; the illustrations are admirable and the use of quote boxes is exemplary. A pleasure to read and review. Tim riley talk 13:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cplakidas

edit

Reserving a spot here, review to come in the next few days. Constantine ✍ 06:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • as the first Greek Ephor General of Antiquities this is meant as the first ethnic Greek who held the post, but would likely be read as 'the first Ephor General of Antiquities of Greece'
    • I've been a bit cautious about terms like "ethnic Greek"; when you use that in a lot of context (e.g. "ethnic Briton", "ethnic American"), it can sound a bit racialist. I've amended to the first Greek to serve as Ephor General... for now: a lot of sources say/suppose that Ross considered himself a Greek, but it was unfortunately made pretty clear that the Greeks disagreed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • played an influential role in the early years of the Greek Archaeological Service and the Archaeological Society of Athens the former is already explained, but the latter needs to be introduced, and what exactly Pittakis' role was.
    • Slightly explained what the Archaeological Society was. Not sure about fully including P's role in the lede: there's quite a lot, from badgering Bellios to found it, to serving as secretary, to writing the Arch Eph, to nearly bankrupting it. Putting in all of that seems excessive, but I can't think of a good subset that doesn't feel reductive. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't it be mentioned that he was a self-taught archaeologist?
    • Agreed and added (with the caveat largely, to accommodate Fauvel).
Early life
  • from Ottoman forces, who then occupied Greece this reads a bit like the occupation was temporary, a la the German occupation of France; Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire since the 15th century.
    • I'd be grateful for your steer here: I'm cautious that the status and legitimacy of Ottoman rule/occupation is a potentially contentious topic. For now, I've removed the second clause and footnoted Athens had been under Ottoman rule since its conquest in 1456.
      • I don't think we need to accommodate extreme nationalist views. Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire for a long time, and most Greeks that lived in those days adapted themselves to that most of the time, contrary to what people today would like to think. 'concealing moveable antiquities from the Ottoman authorities' with the footnote you added would be fine, although perhaps add a link in the footnote to History of Athens#Ottoman Athens.
  • throughout the early months of 1821, the Greek War of Independence began in March 1821. the repetition of the year is redundant.
    • It is: now removed.
  • If we use the transliteration Philomousos Hetaireia above, then I'd suggest using Philiki Hetaireia here, or the reverse, in which case it should be Filomousos Eteria?
    • You may be right; my sense/assumption was that the (classicising) Philomousos society would have used classicising spellings and probably pronunciation, while the more demotic Filiki society wouldn't. There's also an element of WP:COMMONNAME, in that those seem to be the most common terms for each. But consistency is also a virtue: what do you think? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • My tendency, being closely related to several philologists, is always to go with the classicizing transliteration ;). Certainly the spelling 'Philiki Etaireia' is pretty common even today, I dare say even the most common one in the most relevant English-language scholarly works ([2]).
        • Philiki Etaireia keeps the classicising ph but not the classicising h, which seems off (I know the h was never really pronounced, but it's generally written in transliterations from the period, and that's no less true for Attic Greek, where it's universally written): particularly if we're then going to use Philomousos Hetaireia. I've gone with Philiki Hetaireia at least for the moment, which seems like a good compromise between the competing incentives. Happy to keep discussing. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's fine. Consistency in ransliteration is nice, but should not be a straitjacket.
  • on the islands of Aegina and Salamis perhaps add that they were off the shore of Attica?
  • during the siege of the Acropolis, the Ottoman occupiers for clarity, add that this was during the first siege.
  • taken from the temple by Lord Elgin in the early nineteenth century add that this was when Athens was still under Ottoman rule
Archaeological career
  • Greece's first independent head of state in 1827 perhaps 'independent Greece's first head of state in 1827'? I don't know quite what to understand under 'independent head of state' otherwise.
  • employed by the archaeological service by the newly established national archaeological service? It should also be explained why a Greek state institution would not hire Greeks for the post, i.e. why this is remarkable at all. The Bavarians are also mentioned later, and some context would be necessary.
  • sworn in on 25 July [O.S. 6 August] I guess the dates are the other way round?

Must take a break, will continue with the "Naval Records Affair" of 1836 section and the remainder later.

Constantine ✍ 18:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Carrying on for the rest of the article:[reply]

Archaeological career
  • If the Naval Records are a notable topic that might merit an article, perhaps WP:REDLINK them.
  • is Society for the Excavation and Discovery of Antiquities meant to be the suggested name of the society, or rather descriptive? In that case I would decapitalize it.
  • its phase as a Christian church add a date here (approximate in centuries would suffice).
  • possibly encouraged by Rangavis any indication why Rangavis would do this? He is mentioned as a rival earlier on, but so far this rivalry has not been spelled out.
    • One source identified the Naval Records Affair as the major breaking point between the two: I'll dig around and see if there's enough to explicitly join those dots here. They seem to have had a complicated relationship. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great, awaiting with interest :).
        • I've added a bit to the Naval Records section as to how the affair caused a break between Pittakis and Rangavis (Papazarkadas rather nicely describes their relationship as having "managed to co-exist" at the best of times, but I'm not sure I can find a good opportunity to squeeze that in): I think that answers to the word "rival" (admittedly not Papazarkadas': I'm sure it was in one of the sources, though). The source cited for the section on Kolettis' report doesn't attribute any specific motive to Rangavis, so I think this is probably as much as we can say at the moment: the reader should now have enough to draw their own conclusions. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the construction of a museum, which would eventually be begun in 1865 I assume this is the Old Acropolis Museum? Then we should link it.
    • Already linked further up (edit: in a footnote: not sure what the form is regarding repeated links here?), but I've clarified that it's the same museum in the text.
      • My personal preference is to count only links in the main text, but I assume this suffices as well.
        • I've linked it; we treat bibliographic footnotes as their own world when it comes to repeated links (so might link e.g. a journal multiple times across multiple footnotes), so I think the same logic applies here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • commanded by Doge Francesco Morosini nitpick, but Morosini was not yet Doge in 1687.
  • In 1860, he edited last person mentioned is Morosini.
Legacy
  • "Light upon the Stones" are we sure about the translation? Does it come from the source itself?
    • It's my own; please correct if wrong! Couldn't find an English version. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would have (possibly naively) translated it directly from the modern Greek as 'Upon a White Stone', but I assume the ancient connotations were different ('Bright Stone')? Not enough of a philologist to be of help here.
        • I've changed to "Upon a White Stone": that translation would fit if it were intended to be Ancient Greek (λευκός can be either), and it's not too much of a stretch to say that it's alluding to marble: a white stone. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest moving the Fallmerayer affair before In 1852, Pittakis published... to provide context why the 'continuity of descent' needed to be proven. The Fallmerayer affair could also be expanded upon: to whit, that that Fallmerayer's thesis generated a lot of backlash and consumed a lot of the energy of Greek archaeologists and historians to disprove, and that it is (AFAIK) largely discredited today by serious scholars (and not just because of Pittakis' manuscript). I have to admit however that I am still puzzled about Pittakis' role and motivations here: did he deliberately forge a chronicle to discredit Fallmerayer? I have heard of counter-arguments on this, to whit that Fallmerayer was a respected scholar at the time, and that the young Pittakis may simply have tried to impress him, but neither explanation rings true.
    • The accounts that I'm reporting do accuse Pittakis of forgery; I must admit to feeling a little underinformed on the wider controversy beyond Pittakis. Will do a bit more research and see what can be done here. Definitely agreed that we should avoid any suggestion that Fallmerayer was disbelieved only because he used a dodgy manuscript. Have you got any particular sources in mind? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the Fallmerayer affair permeates modern Greek historiography, which was almost founded (by Paparrigopoulos) as a refutation of Fallmerayer's thesis, or at least a reorienting of Greek nationalism away from racial underpinnings to cultural ones, so any work on modern Greek historiography is likely to cover this. On the specific issue of Fallmerayer's suggestions, I don't have something specific in mind, but while the toponyms and archaeological record affirm a large-scale Slavic settlement, they also show that at least the coastal urban centres largely remained in Byzantine hands, and the reimposition of Byzantine rule in the 9th century was also followed by resettlement of 'Greek' populations there.
      • I found something that may be of help, Fine gives a good summary of the arguments, especially for the Peloponnese.
      • Oh, and Florin Curta's Edinburgh History of the Greeks, c. 500 to 1050 covers this in some detail. Curta is an expert on early Slavic and Balkan history, an the Edinburgh series is highly recommended.
        • Thanks for those sources: they were very useful. We now have a whole subsection on Fallmerayer: I've done my best to put the affair into context, without taking the focus too far off Pittakis himself. Grateful for your thoughts: the sources seem to be dominated by the reaction to F's ideas within Greece, and I'm not sure if I've done enough to make clear that Fallmerayer was a pretty big deal to Pittakis, but Pittakis was hardly the only reason his ideas had and have relatively little traction. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for addressing this, I think the section is more than comprehensive now.
  • left the saw itself stuck inside the column until its removal in 2003 no comment here, but I had to laugh at this...
  • A general question: Pittakis is rightly criticized for a lot of things, but was there an actual archaeological discipline at the time? AFAICT all archaeologists were sort of self-taught amateurs, and some of the criticism, unless it comes from contemporaries, feels a bit like criticizing an 18th-century physician for not knowing about bacterial infections...
    • Good question: Ross, in particular, criticised his methods mercilessly, as did Rangavis (after taking part in some of the most ridiculous...). You're right that archaeology wasn't anything like as systematic as it is now, but the basic principle of keeping accurate records was taken seriously, particularly given that most of these people were epigraphers, for whom a slightly obsessive attitude to detail is part of the job. Pittakis was also quite heavily criticised in the foreign press for his protectiveness of antiquities, and for his (alleged, it should probably be said) lack of integrity: Boeck played a substantial role in the latter. It's not quite the same as the surgeon example: even for his day, Pittakis did things rather recklessly, and that was certainly noticed at the time. It's worth noting that a lot of the figures in this story did have formal training at least in aspects of archaeology: Ross, for instance, but also the younger generation, such as Efstratiadis and Koumanoudis. Another interesting comparison is Panagiotis Stamatakis, Schliemann's assistant-cum-babysitter at Mycenae in the 1870s: he didn't have any formal training either, but was noted for being incredibly conscientious, careful and systematic, particularly by comparison with Schliemann. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, that clears it up for me.

That's it for a first pass. An amazing article, I was both informed and entertained, your writing style is very engaging. I will do another read-through after a few days to pick up anything I may have missed. Constantine ✍ 11:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: I have had another look-through now, made a few very minor tweaks. I am very satisfied with the state of the article and your recent additions. A truly excellent piece of work, it was a pleasure reviewing it. Constantine ✍ 10:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again: all well taken (I won't make a fuss over drachmas this time!), and I much appreciate your time and improvements. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

A couple of minor points:

  • "In 1843, Pittakis was appointed to Ross's former post as Ephor General of Antiquities, which he held until his death in 1863": this is imprecise because "which" should refer to the subject of the previous clause. You could fix it with "a post which he held", but that repeats "post". Perhaps expanding slightly to remind the reader that the post had been unfilled would work: "In 1843, Pittakis was appointed Ephor General of Antiquities, a post which had been unfilled since Ross's resignation in 1836, and which Pittakis held until his death in 1863."?
  • "He also continued to excavate on the Acropolis, completing in 1843–1844 with Rangavis the restoration of the Temple of Athena Nike, and uncovering two portions of the Parthenon frieze in 1845." It looks as though "completing" is wanting a direct object?
  • The section "Ephor General of Antiquities" uses "also" a bit more than necessary; I think a couple of the three in the paragraph starting "During his time" could be cut.
  • The sentence starting "Pittakis's accounts of the Turks' indifferent or destructive attitude" is very long; I think breaking it where the colon currently is placed could work, and following it with "The argument has been called" to start the next sentence.
  • In "Legacy" we have "Pittakis's epigraphical work has been criticised for its lack of scholarly rigour" and then in "Criticism" we get "His epigraphic publications have been criticised for their lack of scholarly rigour". I can see why it's mentioned in both places, but perhaps make the second comment refer to the first as established, so as not to appear to repeat?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these, Mike: much appreciated. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The writing is top-notch; I look forward to reading more of your articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Excellent article. The only flaw I could spot was the use of "romanized" instead of "romanised" (in note S), but this is the fault of the template, not the text. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Looking at reliability first.

  • What makes LIFO a reliable source (Chaniotis 2021)? It seems to be a freesheet, which doesn't automatically make it unreliable, but our article on it says it includes blogs as part of its content, and I can't tell if this article is one such.
    • The article's given as a "column" by the website: its author is a pretty well-respected academic (he's a professor of history at Princeton), and the source is carrying pretty light evidential weight (it only needs to prove that Pittakis Street exists and is named after Pittakis). According to our article, LIFO hasn't been a free-for-all for bloggers since 2010, but rather exerted editorial control over those as well ("In 2010, the site was upgraded and only selected bloggers could publish their material."): our article was published in 2021, and I'm not sure it qualifies as a blog anyway. Overall, I think it passes the bar for an RS, especially given the un-extraordinary nature of the claim it's supporting. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The fact that Chaniotis is a professor of history is enough, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come, probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • Petrakos (2013) and Petrakos (2004) should have the "(in Greek)" annotation in the source list.
  • What's the basis for the sort order of the sources, after the name of the author? The Petrakos citations, for example, are not in chronological order or alphabetical order by title, if I remember my Greek alphabet correctly. Similarly for the two Archaeologicial Society of Athens sources.

That's everything for reliability and formatting. Will check links next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The archived version of Gabrielsen (2014) isn't working for me. I get the title, and clicking on that gets the abstract, but there seems no way to get to the article text from the archive.org page.
  • I have the same problem with Veloudis (1970).

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this, Mike - appreciate your time especially on a double shift! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Kyriakos_Pittakis/archive1&oldid=1163455568"