Talk:Alexandros Schinas/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Questions re: expansion and changes

1. I'm thinking we should expand on the geopolitical background. The article, currently, doesn't do a good job of explaining to the reader the world in which Schinas lived and acted, including the First Balkan War, and also placing Schinas in the context of other early 20th-century assassins, most famously Gavrilo Princip. It should also probably mention the earlier assassination attempt against George in the late 19th c. The article doesn't explain, for example, why people might think Schinas was a foreign agent–why Germany or Bulgaria or some other country would want to assassinate George I and have Constantine become King. Perhaps a "background" section is due?
2. Similarly, the article doesn't really go into the impact of Schinas's actions. Perhaps an "aftermath" section is due?
3. I think the Motives section "teaches the controversy" too much. It's written in a he-said/she-said format, rather than presenting a cohesive narrative that summarizes what RS say on the topic. For example, it explains that some say "madman" and some say "anarchist" and some say "foreign agent", but I don't think it really explains that "foreign agent" is what everyone would think of first, because of the recent war, and "madman"/"anarchist" is what the Greek government said to discredit the "foreign agent" theory, and that one interview with Schinas (by Queen Olga's priest, I guess according to his 1962 memoirs) reports that Schinas is an "anarchist", but the interview published for the first time in Kemp's 2018 book has Schinas denying "anarchist" and saying he's a "socialist" (with Kemp saying the two terms were used interchangeably anyway). It seems to be true that the Greek sources present the foreign agent theory more prominently than the English sources (despite Schinas's and the Greek govt's denials, and lack of evidence), and this should probably be conveyed to the reader somehow. So I'm thinking a re-write of the section to talk about the foreign agent theory first, followed by the Greek govt statements saying, alternately, he's a drunk or an anarchist, followed by what historians have said looking back over the years. Thoughts?
4. Excuse me for suggesting something radical but should this article be moved to Assassination of George I (with a redirect of course)? There are many book-length biographies about Gavrilo Princip; there are apparently none about Schinas. We have more reliable information about the assassination–by far–than about the assassin. Is Schinas really notable, or is the assassination notable? (I note [pun intended] that there is also a possibly-notable author named Alexandros Schinas (1924–2012) [1] [2]. Should this title be a DAB?) Levivich (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree from 1-3 but I am a little skeptical on 4th. Surely there is a great deal of overlap between Schinas and Assassination of George I, but it seems to me that there is story to tell on Schinas that is irrelevant to King, like "Early life" section. Also, the version according to witch Schinas was an anarchist and the assassination was a propaganda by the deeds act, adds to my scepticism. I 'll think it a little further. Nice suggestion though, Dragonish. Cinadon36 11:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm also undecided on 4. What gave me the idea was thinking that if we add a "background" and "aftermath" section, "early life" would really be the only section about Schinas that is not about the assassination. On the other hand, a section entitled "aftermath of the assassination" could also be titled "legacy of Alexandros Schinas", so the article could really be written in either way (about the assassination, or about the assassin). I've previously worked on Moors murders and Murder of Tessa Majors–both of which are titled after the event and not the murderer. But on the other, other hand, a political assassination is not like a serial killing or robbery-gone-wrong-murder. On the other, other, other hand, Schinas is still a murderer. "Propaganda of the deed" refers to the action and not the anarchist – no one really holds up Schinas as a model or typical anarchist... not like Princip. On the other other other other hand (Interpol has many hands.), there is something to be said for maintaining the status quo and "if it's not broke, don't fix it". As you can see, I am conflicted and don't really have a strong feeling about it one way or the other, but thought I'd bring it up for discussion. Levivich (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I completely concur with point #4. The very first sentence under "Early Life" says, "Very little is confirmed about Schinas's life before he assassinated King George I." That should be a big clue that this person isn't likely to be independently notable. The "Early Life" section could easily be one section of a wider article on the assassination. The way I see it, the assassination is the more important topic. If hypothetically there were an article on the assassination of George I, and if it became too long for Wikipedia's size limits, then I would agree that perhaps an article on Alexandros Schinas could be spun off from it. However, I don't agree with having only an article on Schinas that deals overwhelmingly with the assassination, which ought to be the main topic. Talrolande (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• #1–3 sounds good, if you have the sourcing. #4, I could have sworn we discussed this somewhere (perhaps on another talk page?) I'm amenable but from my read, the coverage is as much about Schinas as about the assassination. For the latter, I think the existing section in George I of Greece is sufficient and it can always spin out summary style if need be. As a figure, based on how he features in sources on the topic, I wager that Schinas himself is independently notable regardless of whether the assassination needs a dedicated spin-out (the life details of Schinas certainly don't fit in the existing George I article). That little is actually known about Schinas's life is not quite relevant to that independent notability discussion because the point is more that authors like Kemp covered the subject (Schinas) despite the little that is definitively known about him. This said, I did recommend reducing the primary source reliance (e.g., NYT) above, so if y'all feel that there really isn't enough there without it, then a rescoping discussion would be reasonable. czar 23:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed expansion

@Cinadon36, Czar, and Girth Summit: Hello! I've tricked Girth into Girth has graciously offered to lend his assistance with this article, so including him in the ping.

Would you all kindly take a look at my proposed expansion at User:Levivich/sandbox7 (permalink proposed) as compared with the current Alexandros Schinas (permalink current) recent expansion of the article, and let me know your thoughts? My biggest concern is that there is too much new material about background and impact, and I wonder if some should be condensed, moved to footnotes, or removed, and if so, which parts, exactly.

Some notes on what's the same/different:

• I took out the pictures just temporarily because it helps me see the true length of the text
• Added content from the newly-found sources in the #Sources added list above on this talk page, and also went back through the existing sources
• Most but not all of the primary sources are removed
• "First Balkan War" and "Impact" are new sections
• "Motives" section has been rewritten and condensed
• "Early life", "Leaving Thessaloniki" (formerly part of Early life), "Assassination", and "Death" sections are largely the same but with some tweaks from the new sources
• The lead is the same, really just a placeholder; we can worry about that after the body is settled
• The citations are still a mess, pay no mind

I also consolidated some threads on this page and moved them to the archives, and moved links to the sources and our comments about them to the #Pre-FAC checklist thread at the top of this talk page, and updated that.

Thanks for your feedback on the proposed expansion! Lev!vich 23:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Levivich, I understand how it's useful to draft without the images but if you think the new version won't be controversial, could you paste it in over the current version too so we can compare the diffs (and you can get authorship vs. doing it myself)? I tend to make little tweaks as I read. czar 02:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Czar,  Done, you can see the edits section-by-section in the history, or here is the combined diff. I don't think anything is controversial, but I think it might be "bloat"-y. (Also, I've introduced cite errors that show up in mainspace but not in my sandbox copy. Any ideas why?) Anyone should feel free to revert if this is too much change to go "live" with. Lev!vich 03:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Should Motives go before Death? Of course I like the flourish of how it currently ends, but in terms of the flow, it seems like knowing the motive is a prerequisite for understanding his death and then is summated by Impact. (Am I rehashing something that was already discussed or is this new because of the new section?) Also fixed the cite errors. czar 05:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Czar,  Done Special:Diff/973074809 - I did some "massaging", and I think it's a better structure, but I also think it needs more "massaging". I wonder if "questioning the accepted understanding" belongs in a "legacy" or "historiography" section at the end? Lev!vich 06:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Some suggestions after a read through

Girth's comments

A very interesting read - some thoughts:

• ...train Greek troops... ...train Greek troops... - repetitive
• Ottoman's sword of surrender - should that be Ottomans' sword?
• Motives section, second sentence - According to Greek newspaper Kathimerini, Schinas told Queen Olga in a private meeting that he acted alone, and transcripts of depositions Schinas gave after his arrest were lost in a fire aboard a ship while being transported. Should that be two sentences, or reworded a bit? I'm slightly confused about whether or not Schinas told Queen Olga that depositions he gave were lost, or whether Kathimerini is telling us that.
• Is it possible to explain in any greater depth how the ear and the hand were used? 'Identification' is a little vauge - presumably only one person was launched through that window on that day, and they could have taken his finger prints without cutting his hand off!
• Attacked and killed by monkeys!? For real? Any more detail on that? (Species? Were they pets? Was that a common event?)

Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reading it, Girth!

• "train Greek troops" - fixed
• "Ottoman's sword" - I double-checked the sources, and can report that there was, indeed, more than one Ottoman :-) Fixed
• "Kathimerini" - split it into two sentence, hopefully more clear
• Want to see the hand and ear? Czar found it, scroll to the bottom of the page. I can't find any information beyond that they were severed and used for identification. I don't know where fingerprint technology was in 1913 in Greece--I imagine not terribly advanced. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that his face may not have been recognizable post-landing. I can think of some reasons for removing the hand to take a fingerprint: it might have taken too long for a fingerprint expert to arrive; perhaps the finger tips needed to be preserved in order to get a clean print (I don't know if you can fingerprint a "cold" body as well as a living or recently deceased person); maybe it's cheaper to send the hand to the fingerprint expert rather than pay for the fingerprint expert to travel; maybe they needed a whole hand print. Maybe none of those reasons, I'm just speculating. Given the conspiracy theories of foreign involvement, I imagine the authorities wanted to be able to demonstrate with 100% certainty that this was really Schinas's body and that he didn't fake his own death and abscond to Bulgaria or someplace. If his face was unrecognizable, I could see the Greek public being skeptical as to whether that was really Schinas based on the authorities' say-so (particularly those who thought German/Constantine was behind the assassination, since Constantine was "the authorities" at the time). So, the ear and hand may have been a, er, "belt and suspenders" approach to proving that he was really dead. Otherwise it's all just too convenient, isn't it? ;-)
• Monkeys, yes, really. The source cited in the article says "Spanish monkeys," but Alexander of Greece#Death says it was a Barbary macaque. Apparently kept in the gardens at the royal palace at Tatoi. I guess that counts as a pet? You've heard of "first world problems"? This is "royalty problems". You know, that feeling you get when you've just been crowned king only to die a few months later after being bitten by one of the monkeys in one of your royal palace gardens? And you send the doctors away and tell everyone it's just a monkey bite, nbd, only to develop a fever and die of sepsis soon after? Who can't relate? There's a reason why Greek tragedy is legendary. I mean, I'd believe Alexander was smited by a God living on top of the nearby mountain, wouldn't you? Otherwise it's all just too random, isn't it? :-) Lev!vich 16:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, Barbary macaques and Spanish monkeys makes sense, I know from personal experience that they're all over the place in Gibraltar.

  I see the problem with the body parts issue. Leave it as is if there's nothing more we can say, just seems a bit of a macabre thing to do from a 21st century perspective. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Czar's comments

• There are a few images I'd describe as decorative/distracting:
  1. The images in Early life. I think the map would suffice for illustrating this section, unless there's some reason to show these depictions of Volos/Serres.
  2. The Central Thessaloniki map feels decorative unless there is a purpose in describing the distance between the tower and the assassination.
  3. Are the NYT headlines needed? It's not like the headline itself was a point of commentary, right? The text already establishes that he is described as both an anarchist and socialist (which tended to be used interchangeably in the time period anyway).

czar 03:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the postcards and the headlines can go. I was thinking about replacing that map with a better one, possibly one of those interactive street maps (which the reader can zoom in and out), showing the location in Thessaloniki of places discussed in the article (the assassination, White Tower, and maybe Konak Palace). What do you think? Lev!vich 04:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

For a second I thought you meant street views of the locations (which would be amazing!) but if it's more of an interactive (i.e., zoom in/out) of the current map, it sounds like more of a curio for readers. The most useful illustrations, I'd wager, would illustrate those settings to visualize what happened there. Photo of the building from which he fell (if still standing); the location of the assassination (if not completely modernized); etc. The first map makes sense to contextualize how he moved around throughout his life, especially for those unfamiliar with Greece—not sure it's as useful for the other purposes. Otherwise for FA purposes, I think it's adequately illustrated. czar 06:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel like whenever an article discusses a location, we should show the reader a map of that location. So if the article talks about three countries in Europe, it should show a map of Europe with those three countries indicated. If it's three cities in a country, it should show a map of the country with the cities' identified. If it's three places in a city, show a street map of the city, etc. I'm not suggesting that's wikipedia policy or even consensus, it's just what I think of as providing the reader with a basic orientation. Also saves the reader the trouble of consulting a map elsewhere to figure out where these places are.

I removed the current Thessaloniki map which isn't really that great at orienting anybody who is not already familiar with that city. I might mess with an interactive map later; they can be "hokey" but I think can also be useful. Check out St Rufus Church for an example of what I have in mind about map usage. Lately I've had some technical problems with those new OSM maps, so I'm just gonna put that idea on the back burner for now.

I removed the headline pics; those were more directly discussed in the earlier drafts, most of that discussion has since been dropped from the article or reworked to not focus on the controversy.

I removed the postcards. They're so pretty, I really miss them. But Schinas wasn't in those locations at the times depicted in those postcards, and we can probably find something better. For example, a picture of the building where he died is a good suggestion. A streetview of the location of the assassination (or any relevant location) would be cool, too. In any event, more or better pictures can always be added later.

I added the Le Petit Journal pic you found and rearranged some of the others.

Are we good to go with respect to the rest of the pics, discussed at #Images? OK to cross images off the list? Lev!vich 17:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm somewhere in-between. I'd agree that it makes sense to visualize a region if, for example, the article is going to make frequent mention of local interests that would be jargon to those unfamiliar with the region. For example, if Schinas traveled between places, it's useful to see how those places relate. But otherwise we wouldn't need, say, a world map to show the U.S. in relation to Greece.

The postcards were nice. Perhaps to be shared in the FA nom itself?

I responded above re: #Image review. If the ones with unclear provenance are removed, it just needs alt text to have a clean bill of health for FA. czar 05:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Done - Alts added and captions expanded (combined diff), except for the video icons in the external video template in the "Aftermath and motives" section (I made a template edit request for those). Lev!vich 06:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Is it fair to say in the lede, "sources claim he was ... a foreign agent" when later in the article, we write that there is no evidence supporting this? It was just public suspicion right, not an evidenced claim? Given the degree of uncertainty, I think it's worth restricting the lede to what has been reasonably confirmed unless it's noteworthy to give context on what sources have suspected over time? E.g., who claimed that he left Greece and how does that square with the lack of travel/immigration records? czar 05:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• re: "true motivations," is that the goal/is that knowable? I like something along the lines of "the historical record is inconclusive" as being more authoritative than the allusion to a continuing dispute. czar 05:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Both done. Lev!vich 03:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Why is Batznoulis an authority? czar 05:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm inferring, but apparently The New York Times thought it was a big deal that the editor of the Greek newspaper in New York endorsed Batznoulis's account (thus disagreeing with the account provided by the Greek consul general, i.e. the official Greek gov't account). For our purposes, though, the Botassi and Batznoulis accounts were published on consecutive days by the NYT, and both are presented by Kemp (and only Kemp discusses them in any detail) side-by-side as conflicting accounts, the truth of which is unknown (and Kemp ends up doubting both). Hence I think we should present both accounts side-by-side. How much detail we give? My feeling is enough to communicate to the reader that one account was by a Greek gov't official, and the other was endorsed by a non-gov't Greek-language newspaper in NYC. I'm not sure we need to give the names, for example. Alternatively, the details can be pushed to footnotes? Lev!vich 20:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. Removing the names was where I was headed by removing the editor's. Footnotes could work for the extra detail, if they're needed at all. Is there enough info on the Greek-language publication for a stub? czar 21:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

      @Czar: The Greek-language publication already has an article: Atlantis (newspaper), which covers the Vlasto brothers (founders) and says that in 1913, No publication, however, approached Atlantis in influence at the time (among Greek-language publications in the US). This might explain why Solon Vlasto endorsing Batznoulis's account carried weight with NYT. Should we name and link to Atlantis?

      W/r/t removing Botassi and Batznoulis's names, the trouble I run into is in the "Leaving Thessaloniki" section where it says Botassi suggested another explanation for Schinas's departure ... Batznoulis, on the other hand, wrote .... I'm not sure how to refer to the two accounts, both printed in the NYT on consecutive days (Batznoulis's account was reprinted from the Atlantis), other than by "Botassi" and "Batznoulis". Even calling them the "New York Times account" and "the Atlantis account" (or saying, "According to NYT"/"According to Atlantis") is a bit inaccurate because "the NYT account" is repeating what Botassi (Greek consul) and others in NYC said (and was not written in NYT's own voice, but attributed to Botassi and others), and "the Atlantis account" (written by Batznoulis though endorsed by Vlasto) was reprinted by NYT. So I'm left with thinking that naming Botassi and Batznoulis is the best way to identify those two competing histories. What do you think? Lev!vich 01:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

      Huh. I totally missed that article and I vaguely recall searching for it? Makes sense to link it, yep.

      Botassi/Batznoulis: For what it's worth, I've read this article lord knows how many times and I still don't remember which one is which. But if you were to say later in the article, "New York's Greek consul claimed" (better than attributing to the NYT) and "The account in New York's Greek newspaper claimed", I wouldn't bat an eyelash. I get that giving the last name is more precise, but for a general reader, the contextual name still strikes me as kindest to the general reading audience. czar 01:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

      Thanks for the suggestions, Czar! I reworked it to "Greek consul general" and "Atlantis letter", and made a few other tweaks (combined diff). (BTW, turns out Solon Stylien J. Vlasto also has a stub.) Lev!vich 02:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• The "Athanasios" paragraph feels like undue weight—why would a general audience need to know these specifics? czar 05:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Done - I cut down the detail. Lev!vich 20:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• First Balkan War might be too much exposition. If this were an article purely about the assassination and we were talking about the geopolitical impacts of the event, more of this could be useful, but how much does knowing the Megali Idea assist with understanding Schinas? I recommend paring back everything but George's ascension and context for the celebration he was planning in Thessaloniki. czar 05:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Done (I think) - I revised the First Balkan War section, and also the rest of the sections, to cut down on the exposition and distribute some of it to other sections. (combined diff of all changes, diff of just First Balkan War section changes) Lev!vich 18:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Is there a MOS reason for using "the" instead of "his" when describing the bullet's trajectory through George's body? czar 05:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Done - Change it to "his". Lev!vich 20:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• "Many suspected Schinas was an agent" Possible to elaborate whether this was the masses or journalists? Whether it was a feeling or what caused this accusation? Otherwise sounds like the type of rumor we would not report without corroboration or explanation of its noteworthiness. czar 05:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Done (I think) - I changed "Many suspected" to "many Greeks suspected". Kaloudis says "Greeks"; Gallant "most Greeks"; Shirinian says "others speculated"; Newton, Kemp, and Gallant refer to them as "conspiracy theories" ; Kathimerini says "most historians" :-) The sources are all over the map on this and a lot of things surrounding this topic.
    As to the cause, this is where the sources get into the geopolitical history of the First and Second Balkan Wars. The reason he was suspected of being an Ottoman/Turkish agent is obvious: they were fighting a war. Same with Bulgaria, as the assassination happened a few months prior to the Second Balkan War. Walter Christmas, George's biographer, makes a hard case for Schinas being a Bulgarian agent; Tomai quotes Christmas on this: "Everyone, without exception, and I was the first, had not only the suspicion, but the belief that the crime had been committed by a Bulgarian." Kathimerini quotes Zafeiris as saying the German theory is "more likely than the rest". Christmas argued against the German theory on the basis of a conversation he says he overheard where George said he was planning to abdicate at his golden jubilee, which would have made Constantine king anyway, so there was no reason for the Germans/Central Powers to have George assassinated. This counterargument is made by Kemp and other sources as well. My hope is that the recent revision to the motives section is clear and NPOV on this contentious point. Lev!vich 02:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. For what it's worth, "Many Greeks suspected Schinas was an agent of the Bulgarians" still makes it sound like the Greeks suspected Schinas in particular vs. Greeks thought that this could only be done by a Bulgarian agent (i.e., "Many Greeks suspected the assassin was an agent of the Bulgarians"). Another thought, to avoid the "many Greeks" vagueness is to phrase along the lines of "A prominent conspiracy theory attributed the assassination to an agent of the Bulgarians". I think what you wrote is fine, but these two alternatives might be more precise, if helpful. czar 02:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

      Thanks, those are good suggestions. I changed it to "A prominent conspiracy theory suggested the assassin was an agent of the Bulgarians or Ottomans, ... Another suggested the assassin was an agent of the Central Powers ... No evidence has emerged supporting these theories ..." Lev!vich 03:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• "fire aboard a ship while being transported" why were they being transported (was it part of the case or en route to archives?) czar 05:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately the source doesn't say. All it says about it is: "The motive has never been revealed nor has Schinas's testimony in depositions to authorities - a fire broke out on the steamship carrying them to Piraeus. It is reported that in a private conversation with the king's widow, Queen Olga, he stated that he had acted alone, but most historians take the view that he acted on behalf of foreign interests in the Balkans that benefited from the king's murder." IIRC none of the other sources discuss this, but I'll keep an eye out when I go through the sources again for cite review. Lev!vich 02:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• "rendering German intervention unnecessary" Referencing something that isn't discussed? czar 05:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Done (I think) - I think the recent revisions to the motives section (diff) clarify that (as currently worded) "Others believed Schinas worked for the Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary), seeking to replace George with Constantine ... No evidence has emerged supporting these theories, with scholars noting that ... George had already decided to abdicate in favor of Constantine at his upcoming golden jubilee, rendering any intervention by the Central Powers unnecessary". Let me know if that's still not clear enough? Lev!vich 18:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• "the historical record is inconclusive" Does this need to specify "record for his motivations"? Might be better even to open the section with this sentence as signposting (introducing this section in a single sentence). czar 05:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Done - see above diff; moved to be the opening of the second paragraph Lev!vich 18:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• "More than a year after Schinas's death" This paragraph sounds like it belongs better in Motives. czar 05:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Done - moved to the motives section Lev!vich 18:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Impact is more about George's death than his assassination right now. All we need to know about Constantine here is whether/how he was affected by fallout from the assassination. If historians believe there is a connection between the assassination and the National Schism, worth clarifying how.
  • Done (I think) - I merged and collapsed with the motives section (see above for diff), calling it "Aftermath and motives"; the "National Schism" part is now the first paragraph (the aftermath), and the rest is about motives. Not sure if this section should still be split up somehow though. Lev!vich 18:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Made some copyedits but feel free to treat those edits and these questions as rhetorical/only need to respond if it's helpful for you. When resolved, I'd be happy to support at FAC. czar 05:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Czar, just wanted to say thank you for going through this and for the feedback! I will go through it this weekend and respond/update the article accordingly. Lev!vich 18:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • All the copyedits look good to me. Thanks! I responded to some of the comments inline above; will respond to the others later. Lev!vich 20:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I made some changes to cut down on the "Greek politics" expansion per the comments above ((combined diff); my inline responses are above, and I'd welcome any feedback on these edits. Still a few items remaining above that I will come back to. Cheers, Lev!vich 18:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Sources searched

Prior discussion at Talk:Alexandros Schinas/Archive 1#Quest for literature in Greek

Just noting what I've searched. Anything I'm finding I've been posting below.

• Google – combinations of alexandros/alexander/alexandre/alex/aleko schinas/skinas/scinas, and schinas+george+greece+1913, in web/books/news/scholar
• JSTOR – sames searches
• Archive.org – same searches
• Elephind has a bunch of contemporaneous wires but they're just short blurbs and primary sources anyway
• I've reverse-image-searched the images in the article – Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Cin checked Google Books (Greek), sources in Greek Wikipedia article, and Greek Thesis database a/o 5 Feb 2020.
• LOC: Greece--Kings and rulers, --Biography, Assassins--Biography, Assassination--Greece--Thessalonikē--History--20th century
• BNF (in French) not yet checked

Sources added

Prior discussion at Talk:Alexandros Schinas/Archive 1#Quest for literature in Greek

1. Anastasiadēs, Giōrgos O.; Αναστασιάδης, Γιώργος Ο. (2010). "Part B Chapter 2 Η δολοφονία του βασιλιά Γεώργιου Α' (1913)"". To palimpsēsto tou haimatos : politikes dolophonies kai ekteleseis stē Thessalonikē (1913-1968) (1. ekd ed.). Thessalonikē: Epikentro. pp. 54–65. ISBN 978-960-458-280-8. OCLC 713835670. - Cin's translation and notes are at Talk:Alexandros Schinas/Archive 1#Discussing Anastasiadēs (2010)
2. Dakin, Douglas (1972). The Unification of Greece, 1770-1923. Ernest Benn Limited. ISBN 9780510263119. OCLC 2656514.
3. Jensen, Richard Bach (2016-02-05). "Historical lessons: an overview of early anarchism and lone actor terrorism". In Fredholm, Michael (ed.). Understanding Lone Actor Terrorism: Past Experience, Future Outlook, and Response Strategies. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-32861-2. OCLC 947086466.
4. Kaloudis, George (2019-10-04). Navigating Turbulent Waters: Greek Politics in the Era of Eleftherios Venizelos. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-4985-8739-6. OCLC 1108993066.
5. Shirinian, George N. (2017-02-01). Genocide in the Ottoman Empire: Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks, 1913-1923. Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-1-78533-433-7. OCLC 1100925364.
6. West, Nigel (2017). Encyclopedia of political assassinations. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-5381-0238-1. OCLC 980219049.

Sources not (yet) added

Prior discussion at Talk:Alexandros Schinas/Archive 1#Quest for literature in Greek

English-language sources

1. Van der Kiste, John (1994). Kings of the Hellenes : the Greek kings, 1863-1974. Dover, N.H.: Alan Sutton. ISBN 0-7509-0525-5. OCLC 30668585. - added to FR
2. Peters - doesn't look promising per L
3. Kreuter - added to FR
4. Tsirkinidēs - added to FR
5. Vradis - single sentence per Czar
6. Livanios - no mention per Czar

1. Lenz - nothing useful per L
2. Zervas - nothing useful per L

Greek-language sources

1. book by Ioannis Mazis [3] on Ion Dragoumis - Cin's comment: "briefly mentions Al.Schinas in a footnote. He comments that there is a conspiracy theory that Germans were behind the assassination of King George but this is untrue since the murderer, Al. Schinas, was known to have mental problems. (google books does not point to the exact page...)"
2. A tertiary source Σαν σήμερα: Στη νεότερη και σύγχρονη ελληνική ιστορία (could be translated "what happened today in the modern and contemporary greek history) - Cin's comment: "(borderline RS though, publisher is Μεταίχμιο, a respected publishing house but authors are unkwown and I couldnt retrieve their bios.) Well, at the article "5 of March", there is a paragraph on Schinas. It goes like this: subtitle:"Germans behind the assassination?" At the brief text, it says that in 1913, King George was assassinated by Schinas. Motives are still unclear as Schinas fell from the window of the police station while being questioned by the police. And last sentence: "The assassiantion of King George was helpful to Germans because King George's successor was know for being friendly towards Germany"
3. [Οι λήσταρχοι: Τα παλληκάρια τα καλά σύντροφοι τα σκοτώνουν] - Cin's comment: "By Βασίλης Ι. Τζανακάρης, briefly mentions Αλ. Σχινάς in a sentence. "There (Ano Frourio prisons) Al. Schinas, the assassinor of King George was kept before "escaping" through is "suicide"."
4. Ιστορία της Νεώτερης Ελλάδας», Γιάνης Κορδάτος 5ος τόμος, σελίδα 311 -History of modern Greece by Giannis Kordatos, vol. 5 p. 311) published more than 60 years ago (1956-1959) - Cin's comment: "it seems there is a mention of Al Schinas."
5. Η περιπέτεια του κοινοβουλευτισμού στην Ελλάδα: 1844-1915 (parliamentary history of Greece 1844-1915) by Georgios Romaios, (journalist and minister of PASOK-government during the 90's) - Cin's comment: "it is used as a ref in one sentence, that Schinas jumped from the window of the police station and died. I do not think that there are any details on the life of Schinas here, as the scope of the book is to examine the greek legislative body."
6. Dermitzakēs - Cin's comment: "On Dermizakis: Dermizakis (1948-) studied economic and political sciences at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. He had a career in the energy field. He joined PASOK in 1980. [4]. Publishing house is Ρώμη (for Rome). It is not a well known publishing house, it is the first time I am hearing of it. They have a small blog [5]. I am not sure if it qualifies for RS. As of his book, there is a chapter dedicated to the assacination of king George I. ("Η δολοφονία του βασιλιά Γεωργίου Α' - 05.03.1913") It the third chapter of the book as one can have a look here. But I do not have access the text though."

Other

1. La fin du règne du roi Georges de Grèce - nothing useful per L via GT

Road to FA

copied from User talk:Cinadon36#Schinas FA?

Hi Cinadon. Would you be interested in co-noming Alexandros Schinas for FA with me? Levivich 06:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC) @Levivich: Hi there! I 'd love to! Let me know when and how. Cinadon36 07:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC) Great! It's been a while since the last time I looked at this article. Over the next day or so I was going to check it the article against the FA criteria. WP:FAC says to get a mentor. I wonder if czar might be available/interested to mentor us? – Levivich 07:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC) Hi Cin. FYI, I made a few tweaks to the article, but other than those, I didn't see much to change. Czar hasn't edited since I pinged, so maybe we should wait a while until they get a chance to respond. Though I think the article is ready to nominate, I think we should get somebody who has FA experience to look it over before it's nominated. What do you think? Levivich 22:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich and Cinadon36, here we go! I suggest a few steps before nominating:

1. Verify against the source material. Does each footnote accurately support the cited claim? I lost track during the article's expansion, but you want to be able to vouch that the article is accurate. (This will be spot-checked as part of the review.)
2. Account for the article's comprehensiveness. The nature of this article (all of Schinas's unknowns) makes reviewers all but required to ask about whether this is the best possible sourcing. For example, is there really no better sourcing than using the NYT as a 1913 primary source? What databases and books did you search and why is this the best available sourcing? Having a quick explanation either on this talk page or near the FAC nominating statement will preempt the obvious questions.
3. Pretty sure the NYT should be italicized within the {{sfn}} since it's a title and not a surname
4. More generally, check against the FA criteria and if you have time (and haven't already), try giving a review of another FAC to get a sense of what a reviewer will be doing for yours
5. I can do the image review, if you prefer. Image copyright can be tricky.

That's where I'd start before nominating. Otherwise I'd expect to do this stuff during the review, which will slow down the process for you. Let me know how I can help but note that I may be a little slow to respond during the week. czar 03:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, czar!

1. This'll take a while, but I'll get started this week.
2. Yeah this is the weakest part. I remember last year exhausting the various google searches (scholar, books, news, web), but not offline or Greek sources – however both of those are rather inaccessible to me. I imagine the best sources are going to be Greek (which I don't speak). Is there even a chance of passing FA without consulting Greek-language sources?
3. Yup
4. Really, review before being reviewed? I feel like I wouldn't know where to start.
5. Sure. I don't think I uploaded any of the images, so I haven't checked their copyright. But I think they're all pre-1924 so should be OK.

I think it's definitely better to do as much as possible up front before the review. Thanks again for the guidance! Levivich 05:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

No worries Levivich, I 'll double check the sources in greek and let you know if they are ok or not. And on bibliography, I do not think that there are many RS in Greek that discuss Schinas, but I 'll have a look once more.Cinadon36 07:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

6. Citations also should be in a unified style and in alphabetical order. E.g., convert the sole {{citation}} line to use {{cite book|chapter=}}, include location for either all books or none, and are the Google Books archive links actually archiving anything? Fine to remove them if not, as the citation is truly to the book and not to a website. I also recommend linking the titles of periodicals wherever possible. czar 11:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

#1-6 done, archiving. Lev!vich 06:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Pre-FAC checklist

1. Source search/comprehensiveness check (see Talk:Alexandros Schinas/Archive 2#Sources)
2. Add new sources
3. Draft Background section
4. Draft Aftermath section
5. Rewrite Motives section
6. Revisit lead
7. Image review (see Talk:Alexandros Schinas/Archive 1#Image review)
8. OS/NS dates
9. Source verification check
10. Update map
11. Unify/polish citation format and title italicizations
12. FA criteria check
13. Resolve outstanding talk page discussions (see Talk:Alexandros Schinas/Archive 2)
14. Copyedit prose

---

Posting the above to keep track of everything. Please feel free to add/modify. Levivich (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it might be ready now. Lev!vich 21:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)