This is an archive of past discussions about Alexandros Schinas. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
King George I is not only part of Greek history, but one of the founders of modern Greece. His biography should include more details about the people who directly influenced his life. As in this case, the mentioned assassin has ended that remarcable life, so his life (and death) is important as well. --J. Cosmos14:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the sentence "After his death, the greek regime tried in vain to extinguish all information concerning the assassin of their king." because it is uncited, in accordance with WP:V. Technically, the whole article should go, but that sentence struck me as particularly problematic. GRBerry03:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, the entire article has been rewritten since I wrote that comment. With references! Much better now. GRBerry12:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Where
Hi bogdan. You said Schinas called the greek people his countrymen. Could you please help me finding where he has said that? Thanks --J. Cosmos15:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by where. That article from NY Times uses the information it got from a friend of Schinas, from the time he worked in New York (that is, before returning to Greece). bogdan16:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Question
How was the Greek government able to close a school in a city not under it's control? As can be seen from the article, Serres was under Ottoman control until October 1912, then was captured by the Bulgarian army and remained under Bulgarian control until July 1913, after Schinas' death. Of course, if he was really from Volos, there wouldn't be a mistake. Kostja (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
2 users forbid again historians leave only primary sources. This is my last warning. I will inform the community that 2 users claim that primary sources from newspapers of...1920 are secondary sources, and they forbid historians as primary sources.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
No-one is censoring you. You have misrepresented sources as I have shown in the previous section. But feel free to inform anyone you wish. Cinadon36 (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a blatant misrepresentation of the source in this addition [1] The source talks about rumors that he was a secret spy, and the editor (Αντικαθεστωτικος) upgrades rumor as it is a historians's opinion. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
In this edit Αντικαθεστωτικος strikes out that he was anarchist and claims that he was weird. The source is sourcing other primary sources claiming that A. Schinas was weird and was spreading socialist weird ideas. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to contribute, and correct me. But as far i see you just forbid. Take your time. I will put ten more historians. I have great patience. Anarchist lies will die. If they die today or in a few weeks, it won't change anything. Ten historians- AT LEAST- against your newspapers :). I think it is a fair fight. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
In this edit Αντικαθεστωτικος is sourcing his previous claim that "also Michael Kemp says that Schinas may have simply been a sick man (both mentally and physically" but the source is misrepresented (once more) as it states "The accepted position is that he was a homeless alcoholic with anarchist tendencies." Cinadon36 (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
you are missing the point. 18:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Misrepresentations of sources and weird sections
Αντικαθεστωτικός undid my deletion of text based on non RS. Even though it is his burden to establish consensus in the talk page, (per dispute flowchart) here are the reasons I deleted the aforementioned section:
Ref n.10 (ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ΤΗΣ ΝΕΩΤΕΡΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΣΥΓΧΡΟΝΗΣ ΕΛΛΑΔΑΣ (ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΣ ΤΟΜΟΣ) ΑΠΟ ΤΗΝ ΕΛΕΥΣΗ ΤΟΥ ΒΕΝΙΖΕΛΟΥ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΛΛΑΔΑ (1909) ΩΣ ΤΗΝ ΕΚΡΗΞΗ ΤΟΥ ΕΛΛΗΝΟΪΤΑΛΙΚΟΥ ΠΟΛΕΜΟΥ") is not a RS. It is a tertiary source and was published long ago. 0 citations
Ref n.11 ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΟΥ ΕΘΝΟΥΣ ΤΟΜΟΣ 24, National Geographic, a tertiary source. 0 citations
Being weird was claimed by Τομαή Φωτεινή (ref. n. 12). But that was not her assessment on why Schinas killed the king. Plus she linked his weirdness with his socialists ideas.
Kouzinopoulos is not a RS, as another user pointed out. [2]
There is a saying in greek, "6 leaking bags, can carry as much water as one leaking bag". That is the case here. Αντκαθεστωτικος presented a lot of sources that are either not RS, or they are not telling the story he is adding on the article. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Original research on the English Wikipedia (per that link) refers to synthesizing claims that haven't been made by a reliable, secondary source. The NYT's vetting should be sufficient, but of course we should prefer more recent reliable, secondary sources when those are available. In the meantime, it's reasonable to use the NYT until we have a more authoritative source that says otherwise. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar19:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
The "Πολιτικές δολοφονίες στα πρώτα χρόνια της Ελληνικής Δημοκρατίας" episode of the Greek documentary series "Η Μηχανή του Χρόνου" claims that at the time of George's murder, criminals were often branded as Socialists and Anarchists. Moreover the archives of Greek anarchist and socialist organizations do not list him as a member of the aforemntioned political circles. Schinas himself claimed to be from Serres but the local records were destroyed by the retreating Bulgarians, so his true identity is a mystery.--Catlemur (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Catlemur please help me. I have put prominent historians, and two users forbid them, and leave newspapers of 1913 as...secondary and RS sources. Please help me. I will provide 10 more historians. Help me with the censhorship Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
It is a joke, that he was an anarchist. In the more history books it is said that he was a thug and killed the King cause he took money or cause King has laws against gambling. The most sources are from newspapers (primary sources) from the myths-makers journalists of 1913. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
User talk:Czar, the NYT of 1920 cites him as an anarchist. A primary source of the time, is not a RS. Here you can see an example of friendly-anarchist English literature that cites him primary as a mental sick English literature about Schinas see page 184. I will provide more Greek RS that cites him as a madman or a thug who was paid from secret forces of Germany. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Source 3:youtu.be/S-taxSTqwDE?t=1056 in Greek language: police said then that he was an anarchist and socialist as it was a common place then. Just to mention that in Greek civil war, the convicted to death Greek communists were accused as anarchists. Yanis Kordatos said that he wasn't a socialist at all. The Greek journalist says that he was weird person. Also there is the rumor that he was a spy of German forces. And for that the Queen and the (little) Prince Nikolaos blamed the Germans. In this documentary prominent historian Rizas speaks Ριζάς, Σωτήρης and says that this story is a weird story (probably he believe that schinas wasn't mad or anarchist at all, but something else more intelligent..). Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The best available sources claim he was anarchist, this must be stated in the article, but with the proper attribution unless stronger sources make a likewise claim. "Η Μηχανή του Χρόνου" is not a RS though. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
DrKay from a friendly anarchist book. And in conlcusion the author says that he was simply a sick man see the page 184. the other sources says that he was in a web of spies. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Source 4: against your newspaper. Kouzinopoulos1
says Ο δολοφόνος του βασιλιά Γεωργίου του Α΄ επιχειρήθηκε να εμφανιστεί ως «αναρχικός». Και όταν αποκάλυψε στη βασίλισσα Όλγα τους ηθικούς αυτουργούς εκείνου του αποτρόπαιου εγκλήματος, λίγο μετά είχε το τέλος του δολοφόνου του Τζον Κένεντι, του Λη Χάρβεϊ Όσβαλντ, που δολοφονήθηκε ενώ ήταν κρατούμενος. Αλλά και ο ογκώδης φάκελος της δικογραφίας, που είχε σχηματισθεί για την υπόθεση, καταστράφηκε από … «τυχαία πυρκαγιά» στην καμπίνα του πλοίου με το οποίο θα μεταφερόταν στην πρωτεύουσα.https://m.lifo.gr/team/bitsandpieces/45863
--Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Source 5: that cites him as ανισσοροπος(madman) www.ianos.gr/istoria-tou-ellinikou-ethnous-tomos-24-0379081.html page 110. i can provide screen shots if anyone want.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@Cinadon36: Why is Η Μηχανή του Χρόνου not RS? It is probably the most notable Greek documentary series to date produced by professional historians. Unlike the 1920s NYT it is not under the grip of the Red Scare.--Catlemur (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@Catlemur: On scholarly grounds. It is a documentary series from a team that doesnt disclose its editorial policy plus I couldnt find any meaningful citations on google scholar.Cinadon36 (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@Cinadon36: Believe it or not Google Scholar is not Ali Baba's cave of scholarship. Besides Αντικαθεστωτικός has provided more than enough secondary sources that support the same claim. Once again NYT cannot be considered reliable in this case as its authors did not possess the tools necessary to properly analyze the situation.--Catlemur (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Believe it or not, when citation on Time Machine is presented, the discussion will be closed. Αντικαθεστωτικος didnt provide a proper RS. I agree that NYT article is problematic though. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Source 6: Tassos Vournas claims that he was a german spy. from Ιστορία της νεωτερης και σύγχρονης Ελλάδας Volume: Τόμος Β΄ Τάσος Βουρνάς. pages 140-145 . Vournas says ο μισθωμενος απο τους Γερμανούς(page 140))
Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
"King's Murderer Is Educated Anarchist". The New York Times. March 20, 1913. p. 3. ISSN 0362-4331. Aleko Schinas was a man of education and a confirmed anarchist, according to information obtained by Demetrios N. Botassi, the Greek Consul in this city. ... They said his animosity was due to the fact that the Government closed a school of anarchism which Schinas established as Volo, Thessaly. ... [The school] was known as the Ergatikon Kentron, or Centre for Workmen ... at least two of its leaders, a doctor and a lawyer, were thrown into prison ... Schinas escaped ... The authorities seized a number of books and pamphlets published by the school which contained anarchistic doctrines and denounced the King.
Prominent marxist historian Y. Kordatos said that Schinas was NOT in socialist center of Volos.
The NYT is a good baseline, though a later scholarly analysis with the benefit of time would likely be preferable, if reliable. Would need to know more about what exactly Kordatos said and where. The NYT is not a primary source to the incident, though it may directly relay primary source accounts. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar19:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
User talk:Czar so please explain why NYT of 1920 are a better source from a Greek newspaper of 1920? I think you are saying weird excuses cause you insisted and you were obvious wrong. What to you need to learn more? I have put 6 historians, you have put 0. What now with Kordatos? What now? What to you need? Tell me. If i bring Kordatos, then you will say that he isnot a RS. Your arguments change but the conclusion is the same. Just leave the historians opinion, and not the anarhist Pov. It is a joke for english wikipedia this article. Kordatos says that schinas was a tottaly unknown in city of Volos where he supposed to be in a socialist centerΑντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Greek historians of Greek socialist movement don't mention Schinas as something political
1. I checked Greek prominent professor Panagiotis Noutsos in his huge work, he did't mention at all Schinas. Noutsos write everything about the small socialist groups. He don't even mention the educated anarchist Schinas.
You defend the original research from NYT for days, that says that he was an anarchist/socialist center in Volos. And Kordatos (2) said that he was totally unknown. Stop the censhorship. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Using the NYT article is not original research as Czar nicely explained here. Kordatos is not a RS- maybe he was half a century ago. The opinion that he was acting as a spy should be placed in a DUE manner. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Of cource it is original research. Czar has wrong. I can provide Greek newspapers of 1913, or 1920 and i can suggest as the original research that you defend whatever i want. I can prove that he was gay, or nationalist, or Bulgarian! So you suggest that NYT of 1913 ara a RS and Kordatos of 1950 is not. Is it a kind of joke? Vournas, Kordatos, Greek historians in cooperative works, and you only bring NYT of 1913, and a line from a book. Ok it is a joke. Cause i fear that the other explanation is trolling. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be that it is your opinion against the rest of editors. Anyway NYT article is no longer the main source of the WP's article. As for Noutros and Kordatos, I have answered previously. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Just wait, the others users to contribute. Until then. Feel free to do something (add something from a historian!) but DONT delete sources again. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
There are some serious problems in current version, which was shaped by Αντικαθεστωτικος.
Being an anarchist, which was an important aspect of his life, was removed from the lede.
The time he spent in New York, is removed (but not that he returned to Greece later)
Newly formed section of "modern assessment" is unnecessary
While the mainstream view was that Speras was an anarchist actor, a conspiracy theory is placed as the mainstream opinion. Note that Kordatos work was published almost a century ago, and Vouras, talked about rumors being paid by spies. More to that, Kouzinopoulos, a non historian, is placed back in the article, even though I and another user told Αντικαθεστωτικος that it is not proper for us to use that source.
These are pressing problems of the article that need to be addressed. Cinadon36 (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC
1.he wasnt an anarchist. It is a lie.
2.he was a thug and eat only milk, and he went in many places and many times in Germany. We must add it. Cause it is a question of historians where he found the money.
3.No.
4.Vournas say thay he was paid. No rumors at all. I am amazed that you promote 1913 NyT as good source and you dont like historian Kordatos work of 1950! Journalist Kouzinopoulos is a well publiced Journalist. If Kemp is a RS then Kouzinopoulos is.
Feel free to do something, and to add something. As far as i see you add one citation of a book that has 7-8 words for Schinas. It is a huge progress than the newspapers of 1913 that you defended but i am not sure that is something serious.
Also there are many claims that he was also
1. gay and lover of fragoudis
2. he tried to kill fragoudis
etc.
many many theories. but propaganda anarchists of 2018 select the newspapers of 1913(!!!) and provide theories of the time as facts.
if it wasnt me the lies of anarchists will be in the article as you forbid anything to change until new users came and your censhorsip ended.
now it will take to me one month. but it is over. 10 historians at least i will provide. So change whay you can for now.
It is not a lie that he was an anarchist. Many sources claim so. Hanhimäki and Henry E. Mattox claim so. Even sources that you have suggested claim so ("anarchist tendencies"). Tomai's is describing him having ideas that fell within the ideology of anarchism. Working in NY is notable as Kemp and other authors discuss that journey of him. A separate section is not needed for a small paragraph, plus this kind of sections are highly unusual in the enWP. As for Vouras, you said he we wrote about those rumors.(Source 2: from the work of Univerity professors 1. it says that the rumors said that (Schinas) was a German spy. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Cinadon36 (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to this article?
The first global wave of terrorism and international counter-terrorism, 1905–1914: Richard Bach Jensen
RB Jensen - An International History of Terrorism, 2013 - taylorfrancis.com
It's a book chapter and I put in a request for a copy. Jensen has a recent book too but waiting for the price to drop before I acquire. Google Books has only one hit for "Schinas":
"Although often dismissed as simply a 'madman', several witnesses attest to Aleko Schinas's intelligence and commitment to anarchist ideas. [cites NYT 1913-03-20]
During the 1905–14 period, real or alleged anarchist acts of violence also took place in Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Belgium, Germany, the Balkans, and the Ottoman Empire. While the assassin of King George I of Greece in March 1913 has often been written off as simply a madman, evidence from people who knew Aleko Schinas when he lived in the United States attests to his intelligence and firm anarchist convictions.
This is a later version of the volume mentioned in the last section. The quote comes from a chapter by Jensen, which makes Randall Law the editor, not the author. I'll update the citation. Furthermore, the sentence affirms that Schinas had "firm anarchist convictions" so what point are you attempting to make? "Anarchist" in this time period was often an epithet thrown around for any chaos-inducing terror but having Jensen reaffirm Schinas' political beliefs... solidifies the epithet. czar14:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
No. This section suggests that the maistream view is that he was a madman but there are some stories that the writer believe that he was an anarchist. So i admit that there are english sources that suggest that he was an anarchist. That is the reason for false claims. It is obvious that english writers didnt know Greek language and so they say funny things like anarchist school in Volos. But ok. I cant do something. I accept itΑντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
First of all you are skipping all other sources presented that he was anarchist and secondly, the aforementioned quote leans in favor of Schinas being an anarchist. Cinadon36 (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
A)That book is not a RS for Schinas, but for King Pavlos. (per WP:RSCONTEXT) The author is discussing the life of King Pavlos, is not dealing with Schinas as the rest of RS sources used in the article. B)It would be better to present your newly found arguments to Schinas Talk Page. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Richard Clogg is the writer. Google it, and stop the trolling. It is my last warnign. The next time i will inform Greek and English community about your doings here. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
a)Inform anyone you wish.b)claiming that I am trolling is yet another personal attack. Cinadon36 (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
2 In March 1913, King George fell prey to an assassin's bullet. A Greek madman espied the aged monarch out on his daily afternoon walk along the waterfront in Thessaloniki from Thomas Gallant (historian)
3 Ιστορία του Νέου Ελληνισμού, 1770-2000, Η εθνική ολοκλήρωση (1909-1922), Από το κίνημα στο Γουδί στην Μικρασιατική Καταστροφή, εκδόσεις Ελληνικά Γράμματα. τόμος 6ος σελίδα 16. Prominent historian Mavrogordatos. He says that the theories about Schinas as an active of Germany, was never confirmed, but Germany win from his assasination and Schinas suicide was weird. Nothing about the claim that he was an anarchist.
You can translate to English and check every citation it's link (when it's available). The article is not POV, it's not original research, it has not lies, and has all the opinions.
I suggest this paragraph on motives of Schinas to be inserted in the text.
The most prominent theory is that Schinas murdered the King based on his ideology, it was a classic example of propaganda by deeds.[1][2] Other theories have espoured though as of him being an actor of German spies[3][4] or Bulgarians or Turks.[1] Others point to his weird personality as an explanation of his motive.[5]
^Bernhard Blumenau 2013, p. 30: "Although often dismissed as simply 'a madman', several witness attest to Aleko Schinas's intelligence and commitment to anarchist ideas." sfn error: no target: CITEREFBernhard_Blumenau2013 (help)
^
ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ΤΗΣ ΝΕΩΤΕΡΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΣΥΓΧΡΟΝΗΣ ΕΛΛΑΔΑΣ (ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΣ ΤΟΜΟΣ)
ΑΠΟ ΤΗΝ ΕΛΕΥΣΗ ΤΟΥ ΒΕΝΙΖΕΛΟΥ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΛΛΑΔΑ (1909) ΩΣ ΤΗΝ ΕΚΡΗΞΗ ΤΟΥ ΕΛΛΗΝΟΪΤΑΛΙΚΟΥ ΠΟΛΕΜΟΥ (1940)
ΒΟΥΡΝΑΣ ΤΑΣΟΣ page 140, Vournas says ο μισθωμένος από τους Γερμανούς δολοφόνους, Αλεξ. Σχινάς
^ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΟΥ ΕΘΝΟΥΣ ΤΟΜΟΣ 24, National Geographic publications page 110 in Greek ανισόρροπος
^Tomai 2012 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFTomai2012 (help)
I've seen Kemp's but what's the context of refs 2 through 5? Would be nice to provide quotes within all of the refs since it's very unlikely that the reader will go through the trouble of digging up those sources. czar17:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the question @Czar:. As for ref 2: "Although often dismissed as simply 'a madman', several witness attest to Aleko Schina's intelligence and commitment to anarchist ideas. As for ref 5, that is little more difficult to translate because it is a big text. But I 'll give it a try since it seems to be important. Η ταυτότητα του δολοφόνουΤα αλλεπάλληλα τηλεγραφήματα του νεαρού τότε διπλωμάτη Β. Δενδραμή, ένια των οποίων παρατίθενται, ήταν αποκαλυπτικά: επρόκειτο για Ελληνα, ονόματι Αλέξανδρο Σχινά από τις Σέρρες, ιδιόρρυθμο άτομο, εγγεγραμμένο στην Ιατρική Σχολή Αθηνών, όπου βεβαίως δεν εθήτευσε, ο οποίος με το επιχείρημα ότι «ζητών βοήθειαν με αναφοράν του εις το παλάτι, ο υπασπιστής του βασιλέως τον εξεδίωξε!» (ΑΠ 338, εκ Θεσσαλονίκης, Δενδραμής). Στο ίδιο τηλεγράφημα ο Δενδραμής χαρακτήριζε τον Σχινά «έκφυλον αλήτην, ουχί παράφρονα βεβαίως, ζώντα, όμως ανισορρόπως, δι’ επαιτείας. Εις τους πλησιάζοντας αυτόν ανέπτυσσε περιέργους ιδέας περί σοσιαλισμού, ότι όλοι οι άνθρωποι εντός ολίγου θα είναι πλούσιοι, ότι δεν θα υπάρχουν πλούσιοι και πτωχοί και ότι οι εργάτες θα εργάζονται μόνον δύο ώρας την ημέραν. Εζη εις άθλιον χάνι δίδων δύο γρόσια την ημέραν διά τον ύπνον του και ξοδεύων άλλα δύο γρόσια διά την τροφήν του. Δεν έτρωγε παρά μόνον γάλα…» (όπ.π.). tranlation" ‘’’The Identity of the Murderer’’’ The successive telegrams of the then young diplomat B. Dedrami, which were listed, were revealing: He was a Greek, named Alexandro Schina of Serres, a peculiar person, enrolled at the Athens Medical School, where he certainly did not attend, who argued "asked for help with reference to the palace, the king's assistant has expelled him!" (CA 338, from Thessalonica, Dedrami). In the same telegram, Dedramius characterized Schinas as "a lewd vagabond/bum , certainly not insane, living unbalanced, by begging. He was telling to the people that were reaching him, weird ideas on socialism, that in near future, people will no longer be poor or rich, and that workers will work 2 hours per day. He was living in a miserable inn, paying 2 γροσια per day and spenting another two grosia for his meal. He was only eating milk. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
My initial impression is not to attribute a motive where none is stated, considering how sources make a point of saying how little we know for sure about him. So unless a source speaks to his motivation for the assassination, these other attributes can simply be listed as parts of his personality: "Sources have variously attributed him as an anarchist[1][2] and a vagabond or beggar.[3][4]" or whatever other adjectives have been sourced. Can do the same with "X sources describe him as a 'madman' and Y say he was not" (as ref 5 above: "certainly not insane"). But seems weird to say that, "Others point to his weird personality as an explanation of his motive," when it's a single source and the peculiar personality isn't actually presented as motive less than just a descriptor. czar19:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I think Kemp's book is a reputable source (published by McFarland, detailed, and well-sourced itself). This was one of the sources I was going to add, because he explains the "anarchist" label and the problems with it. I'll wait to see where the article is after the {{in use}} tag is removed to see if I have anything to contribute. Levivich (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Kemp is cited a dozen times without specifying the page numbers, making it very hard to verify the details. I can provide a scan with page numbers ( email me ) for anyone who wants to go back and add those details with {{sfn}}. czar18:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I think my initial edit was overcited (somewhat on purpose), so I took a lot of the "unnecessary" Kemp cites out. Still, there's a lot left. I feel Harvard is cumbersome when there are less than 100 citations, because Harvard requires two steps to go from text to source, instead of one. I had a draft using {{rp}} but I hated how it looked so I took it out. Given that Kemp gives a good summary but doesn't really provide any groundbreaking new scholarship or say anything all that controversial, and given it's like a 10-page chapter, is it really necessary to cite to a page number? (I don't have strong feelings either way.) Levivich (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
New addition by Αντικαθεστωτικος, December 4
Αντικαθεστωτικός has tried to bypass one more the consensus building procedure of WP. After his insertion was reverted, he didn't care to discuss it at the talk page. Instead he tried to re-revert and initiate an edit war. This is becoming more and more frustrating. I am starting a new section to discuss his new proposal. First of all,
He added Richard Clogg [4] claiming that he was a madman. The problem with this source is that it does not discuss Schinas, the chapter is dedicated on King Paul. The source is RS about the King, not Schinas.
He used a newly found source 90 by Mazis. He found it on google books search, and we can only get a snipped view. We do not know what Mazis is talking before or after the one particular sentence we can read through snippet view.
I'm not opposed to including Clogg, but I think the citation is very weak: not scholarly in that it lacks footnotes, is an overview text and imprecise despite being published by Cambridge. If covered, it should be proportionate. Namely, the list of adjectives from the lede section should be moved further down in the article. In other words, that Clogg describes Schinas as a madman does not give that claim equal weight to Kemp.
That sources described Schinas as a communist or atheist is... not particularly useful info? But if necessary can be included below. The lede should be an overall summary of the article. If it must account for words used to describe Schinas, generalize it in the lede and offer further detail/footnotes in the prose below. czar18:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree it doesn't need to be in the lead; I moved it to the body. I also removed footnotes as I don't think they're necessary in the lead, if anyone objects I have no problem putting them back.
I think "atheist," "communist," etc. should be included because they're used in many times by the same source, sometimes in the same article. For example, the Mar. 20, 1913 NYT article is cited in a number of other sources (Mattox, Hanhimäki). I'm going to pick on Mattox here. He says Schinas is a "confirmed Anarchist," "said to be well educated," whose "principal grievance evidently was the closure by the government of a school of Anarchism he had established in Greece." All three point seem to come from the Mar. 20, 1913 NYT article. But here is the full quote from Botassi's interview in that article: "The man was well educated, an anarchist, and an atheist." Who are we to pluck out "well educated" and "Anarchist" but not "atheist?" In the same article, the other witness, Charrns, says "I always quarreled with him because of his atheistic and Socialistic ideas." In Charrns' mind, "atheist" came first, before "Socialist." And the same article quotes one witness saying he is a Socialist, and another saying he is an Anarchist. The phrase "confirmed Anarchist" is like "confirmed Communist" when used by Senator Joe McCarthy or "confirmed homosexual" when used by J. Edgar Hoover. It's an obvious epithet, and I have no respect for Mattox for printing it in encyclopedic voice (and less respect for McFarland now for publishing that book). Anyway, I think where Wikipedia says "anarchist" or "socialist" we should also include the other things that the same people called him, i.e., atheist, communist, etc. Let the reader see that context.
Also wanted to say I cannot see Clogg so that's the only reason I didn't include that reference, but I have no opinion about it since I don't have access. Levivich (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
We can't judge secondary sources, if they have done a good or bad job- we lack those skills. I do not know what Mattox had in mind when he was writing those lines, but maybe he took into consideration the anarchist and socialist tendencies of Schinas, plus Schinas lifestyle and his pattern of actions that resemble the anarchist's modus operanti. It is very important thought to distinguish a)from Schinas being an anarchist -which no source claim the opposite to b)his motivation was political (which is the mainstream opinion according to Kemp and others) Cinadon36 (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I hate to argue, but I don't agree that we cannot judge secondary sources. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content...Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. I find the essay WP:POVS persuasive: On controversial topics, Wikipedians often need to deal with sources that are reliable but non-neutral. The best solution to this is to acknowledge that a controversy exists and to represent different reliable points of view according to the weight that reliable sources provide. Intelligent readers will weigh the opposing sides and reach their own conclusions. Kemp says Schinas was not an anarchist; see my quotes in the section below. Levivich (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS refers to weighing the context of each RS, not judging the work of a RS and claiming "AuthorA was misled here and here". Context matters means that we should read the text of AuthorA, summarize it and present it in DUE weight. That brings me to another point, that we can not use snippet views from google books, as it is suggested for Mazis's claim that Schinas was insane. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
7 historians are not equal to no historian M.Kemp? Why ? Clogg is the most prominent historian for greek affairs. I really dont understand. You prefer newspapers of 1913 and what no historians wrote. Why?Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Schinas being an anarchist belongs to the lede
Many RS claim that Schinas was an anarchist, and no RS claims otherwise. Being an anarchist is of vital importance as it 's the cornerstone of the mainstream theory on what motivated to murder the King (the only reason why Schinas is notable). So I can not understand why it's not mentioned in the lede, while other staff of minor importance, and much less coverage, are there. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Kemp 183: "Regardless of the motivating factors that lay behind the regicide (which were almost certainly not, as commonly presumed, part of a wider campaign of propaganda of the deed), the consequences for Schinas were severe."
Kemp 184: What is clear is that the understanding that Schinas acted as a motivated Anarchist attacker is inherently flawed. Rather than being part of a wider conspiracy, whether political or enacted by a state, Alexandros Schinas may have simply been a sick man (both mentally and physically) seeking an escape from the harsh realities of the early twentieth century.
Michael Newton is another sources who also doubts that Schinas was either an anarchist or a socialist.
Dear Levivich, Kemp is discussing the theories conserning the motives of Schinas the quotes you have presented. According to Kemp {{tq|"One significant consideration when discussing Schinas, aside from the mysterious nature of his history, is his motivation for assassinating King George I. The accepted position is that he was a homeless alcoholic with Anarchist tendencies...." Plus, as Kemp states in the first quotation you presented, is that the mainstream view on the motivation, is that it was propaganda by deeds and he (Kemp) does not agree with the mainstream idea. Finally, I can not understand how you conclude that Michael Newton doupts that Schinas was an anarchist or a socialist. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
"In March 1913, King George fell prey to an assassin's bullet. A Greek madman espied the aged monarch out on his daily afternoon walk along the
waterfront in Thessaloniki, approached him, and shot him in the back. The murderer, Alexandras Schinas, said he killed the King because he would not
give him some money, but most Greeks believed that the killer was a Bulgarian agent. Ironically, just before he was slain, George had decided that he would
take the opportunity of the forthcoming jubilee celebration of his coronation to abdicate in favour of Konstantine." Thomas Gallant (historian). Gallant's view is correct. The first view for Schinas a little time after King's assasination was that he was an Bulgarian agent and to prevent to do reprisals in Bulgarians-minorities civilians, Greek authorities said in the first place that he was a greek man. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
a)You can not tell if he is correct or not. b)being a madman does not exclude someone of being an anarchist. c)There are various "Agent" theories, conspiracy theories as Michael Newton suggests, ie Bulgrarian/ Turk/ German agent. Cinadon36 (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
a) I just did it. b)So maybe he was an anarchist madman c)There are not conspiracy theories. There are just theories. Greek historian Mavrogordatos in this source Ιστορία του Νέου Ελληνισμού, 1770-2000, Η εθνική ολοκλήρωση (1909-1922), Από το κίνημα στο Γουδί στην Μικρασιατική Καταστροφή, εκδόσεις Ελληνικά Γράμματα. τόμος 6ος σελίδα 16 says (in loose translation:) that these theories are never confirmed, but indeed Germany won from his assasination, and death of Schinas was "weird". Mavrogordatos is the most prominent historian that is here, and he doesnt mention at all(!) that he was an anarchist/socialist etc. So the mainstream view is that he was a MADMAN. Also, there are 2 minor theories a)spy/paid from spies b)anarchist/socialist. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
a)You did but it is not appropriate to choose what author suits your POV and claim he is right and the rest are wrong. c)Being an agent is a conspiracy theory, as Michae Newton suggest. The reason is it is based on rumors and no hard evidence. As for Mavrokordatos, not mentioning being an anarchist does not mean he was an anarchist. Major thery is that he it was propaganda by deeds and minor theories are i)agent (of whom?) ii)personal motives Cinadon36 (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Major theories, are from Major historians like Clogg and Gallant who are experts for Greek affairs, not from newspapers of 1913, and from terrorist enclyclopedias. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Kemp deserves the most weight. It is the longest, most thorough English-language piece about Schinas I have seen. It's only 9 pages, but that's like 9x longer than what anyone else is writing about Schinas in English. It has the most sources: 21 sources, which is maybe 10x more than anyone else seems to have (in English). His sources include not just the New York Times, but also other primary sources. He includes a first-ever English translation of Magrini's interview with Schinas--that's a great, new source (new for English). Kemp is the most recent. Kemp is published by McFarland. He is an excellent secondary source in my opinion, deserving great weight.
Newton is not nearly as long or well-sourced as Kemp, but still it is recent (2014) and published by a reputable publisher, ABC-CLIO. I think Newton doubts Schinas was an anarchist or a socialist because he writes: ...described in the press reports as a member of an unnamed "Socialist organization." When he says, unnamed "Socialist organization", with the use of scare quotes ("Socialist organization" instead of Socialist organization), he is implying that Schinas was not a member of a socialist organization. Similarly, when Newton writes In custody, Schinas initially refused to speak, but was "forced to undergo examinations"–understood to mean torture–finally producing a confused confession that mixed anarchist sentiments with a claim that "he had killed the King because he refused to give him money." To me, it seems clear Newton is stating that they tortured him until he said something "confused" about anarchism and being owed money. He is suggesting that the "anarchist" confession was a response to torture, not a true statement of motivation. If Newton thought Schinas was an anarchist or socialist, he would have written, "Schinas, an anarchist, ..." or "Schinas, a socialist, ..." instead of "Schinas, described in press reports as..." I note that Newton is a tertiary source, not a secondary or primary one. Newton deserves less weight than Kemp because Kemp is a chapter all about Schinas, among 12 chapters, whereas Newton's is an entry among many, many others in an encyclopedia, and thus less of a primary focus of the overall work.
Mattox is a brief, passing reference, also in a tertiary source. One paragraph. He does have a good bibliography, but no explicit source for the article on Schinas. From the language, it is obvious that the source is the 1913 NYT reports ("a confirmed Anarchist said to be well educated, had worked at one time in New York. His principal grievance evidently was the closure by the government of a school of Anarchism he ad established in Greece. "). This is clearly Botassi's interview in the March 20, 1913 NYT article. Doesn't even mention any other of the many stories we know are out there, even from the New York Times. Mattox is clearly not a serious or significant or thorough examination of Schinas. It is a "passing mention" in an encyclopedia about "terrorism" (not even anarchism, nor Greek history). It does not deserve much weight, even though it is recent and published by McFarland.
Hanhimäki deserves the least weight in my opinion. It's a passing mention in a footnote. The only way Hanhimäki could have given Schinas less thorough treatment is if he deleted Schinas's footnote entirely. This is like the minimum possible treatment of Schinas in a book. And, the source for the footnote is the same, single "breaking news" report. Even at WP, we don't rely on breaking news primary source newspaper article. Also, this is a tertiary source relying entirely on a primary source. That's against the rules in Wikipedia, too. It should be against the rules for all tertiary sources. That makes, in my opinion, Hanhimäki not a reliable source at all-- a tertiary source is not reliable if it's publishing "facts" based on a single primary source. That's a basic academic violation in my opinion. If it were up to me, I would delete Hanhimäki from the article. It is recent and published by Routledge, so if other editors think it should be included, I have no strong objection. (That's why I didn't remove it from my edit.) But I give Hanhimäki very little weight.
Jensen I do not have access to, but I believe based on others comments, it is also based on one primary source, just like Hanhimäki. If this is so, then my opinion would be the same as for Hanhimäki.
Tomai... I do not read Greek, so I will not make any judgments. Based on Google translate, it appears to be a thorough discussion of Schinas. But again, I don't want to interpret it based on Google translation, so I will leave the Greek-language sources to Greek-speaking editors to discuss :-)
Still, I agree with Cinadon's view that Kemp is recognizing the "accepted position," but saying that he, Kemp, disagrees with it. So, here is possible sentences for the lead and my thoughts on them:
Schinas was an anarchist. - I don't think we should say it like this, in "Wikipedia's voice," because I think the weight of reliable sources is against, not in favor, of this statement, for the reasons I stated above.
The accepted position is Schinas was an anarchist. or The common view is Schinas was an anarchist. or The common view among English-language sources is Schinas was an anarchist. or something similar - I think this is a true statement, but I think it is incomplete, and therefore "inaccurate," and I would prefer not to use this.
Some say Schinas was an anarchist, others say he was a socialist, spy, or alcoholic. or Schinas has been described as an anarchist, a socialist, etc. etc. or something similar (basically, what I wrote in my edit, and what I moved from the lead down to the body yesterday) - I think it's more accurate to show the reader all the things that Schinas has been called, and let them decide. I think this is what is suggested by WP:POVS when it says The best solution to this is to acknowledge that a controversy exists and to represent different reliable points of view according to the weight that reliable sources provide. Intelligent readers will weigh the opposing sides and reach their own conclusions.
Recent scholarship has challenged the traditional view that Schinas was an anarchist. - This is what I think is the best way to describe it, based on my view that Kemp and Newton both doubt that Schinas was an anarchist or socialist. I agree only Kemp is explicit about this; Newton is more implicit; and there is no one else I know of. So maybe it's too soon to make this claim based on "one and a half" recent sources. If others don't like this, I am OK with something else. Levivich (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
1. I totally agree on Kemp being the most RS. But what is the narrative of Kemp? IMO, a)he accepts that Schinas was an anarchist b)on the motive he states clearly that the mainstream view is that it was propaganda by deeds, and c)He doesn't accept the mainstream view. He is understood and defined as a lone Anarchist actor, and his regicide is assumed to be an example of propaganda of the deed (he states that the overall state-narrative is not very accurate though) After that, he discusses primary sources claiming that Schinas was an anarchist. Later on The accepted position is that he was a homeless alcoholic with Anarchist tendencies and The assassination of King George I is commonly thought to be an example of Anarchist propaganda of the deed (indeed, Schinas is typically referenced as a follower of this philosophy) or the work of a lone madman, motivated by non-political factors. Schinas has been characterized both as an educated and criminally motivated Anarchist and as a hopeless and mentally unbalanced alcoholic. So IMHO, Kemps makes the case for being an anarchist.
2.IMO, when Newton writes .described in the press reports as a member of an unnamed "Socialist organization." implies that he was an anarchist as Anarchist is considered by some, but not all, as a branch of socialism- certainly most forms of European Anarchism derives from the Socialistic ideas (as opposed to American anarchism which is more individualist). So a man belonging to a small anarchist organization, could qualify for being a member of a non formal socialist organization or "socialist organization". Now, as for the confession part, it is surrounded by so much dust, that we can not really know what happened. But as for the discussion we are having, Newton is clear that being an anarchist was an important factor of the confession, hence, my argument that Schinas anarchism belongs to the lede.
3.Mattox is using the primary source, but that means that modern research validates as reliable the NYT articles. Just because a RS accepts a Pr.Source, does not mean that it is no longer a RS. Having said that, Kemp's work is a better source.
4.Hanhimäki if a uni prof, and adds slightly to the argument that Schinas's anarchism belongs to the lede.
5.Jensen- ok.
6.Tomai- there is a translation above. Here 's the diff
As for the four proposals, I 'd peak any of 2-3. 4 is erroneus, because it implies that a)there has been extensive research of Schinas-which is not true and b)recent scholarship has not challenge the idea that he was an anarchist. Kemp challenges the idea that the motive was political. Between 2 and 3, which are both fine, I would prefer 2 because I do not like words such as "some" per WP:AWW. But if you insist on 3, I wont mind. I 'd like to know @Czar:'s opinion though. Thanks for your analytical explanations. Cheers. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
While Schinas is commonly portrayed as an anarchist with political motivations (propaganda by deed) and as a madman without political motivations,[1][2] the historical record is inconclusive.[3] Some recent scholars have cast doubt on the explanation that Schinas acted out of political motivation.[4][needs more citations]
Alt: Schinas is understood to have been, in his later life, a homeless alcoholic with anarchist beliefs.[2] Accordingly, his motivation for the assassination is commonly ascribed to his anarchist politics (as propaganda of the deed) or to mental illness (without political motivation).[1] Ultimately, the historical record is inconclusive.[3] Some recent scholars have cast doubt on Schinas's political motivation for the assassination.[4][needs more citations]
References
^ abKemp 2018 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKemp2018 (help), p. 183: "The assassination of King George I is commonly thought to be an example of Anarchist propaganda of the deed (indeed, Schinas is typically referenced as a follower of this philosophy) or the work of a lone madman, motivated by non-political factors. Schinas has been characterized both as an educated and criminally motivated Anarchist and as a hopeless and mentally unbalanced alcoholic."
^ abKemp 2018 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKemp2018 (help), p. 181: "The accepted position is that he was a homeless alcoholic with Anarchist tendencies."
^ abKemp 2018 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKemp2018 (help), p. 184: "Schinas remains an elusive figure and a controversial one. The results of his actions are readily apparent, but what prompted them and, indeed, the details of the man behind them remain ephemeral, drawn as they are from muddled statements provided by multiple sources."
^ abKemp 2018 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKemp2018 (help), p. 184: "What is clear is that the understanding that Schinas acted as a motivated Anarchist attacker is inherently flawed."
Here's my take and open for workshopping. This is before adding any supplemental sources, as needed. I haven't read Kemp closely but he seemed to acknowledge (rather than deny) the anarchist affiliation but doubt (towards the end) that it was the motivation for the assassination. I think the fairest interpretation is that Kemp acknowledges that Schinas is commonly understood to be an anarchist, doubts that the assassination was political motivated, and throughout, acknowledges that these things are very hard to know with certainty based on conflicting accounts in the historical record. Does this version address all concerns? czar19:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both for your thoughts and contributions. I agree that Kemp acknowledges the mainstream view, but says that he, Kemp, disagrees with that view. (Sorry Cinadon, I should have said that in my last reply but I forgot.)
Czar that's really clean work! I think the first sentence ("While Schinas is commonly portrayed...") is perfect for the lead. I don't think the second sentence ("Some recent scholars...") is necessary in the lead. I would strike it entirely and just go with the first sentence, because "the historical record is inconclusive" in the first sentence basically says the same thing as the second sentence.
I like the Alt for the first paragraph of the "Motivations and political beliefs" section (to replace or perhaps be merged into the existing first paragraph).
Is "Some recent scholars have cast doubt..." overstating it, if we only have one scholar who is explicitly casting doubt? Even if you grant me Newton's "implication" and say it's 1.5 scholars, that's not really "some" :-) Maybe we should not say "some" until and unless we have at least two sources to put there? Until then, perhaps don't include the "Some recent scholars..." sentence in the first paragraph of the "Motivations" section (or in the lead), and instead use it as the first sentence for the last paragraph about Kemp's doubts: "One recent scholar has cast doubt... In a 2018 book, ..." Levivich (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
PS: As to "extant," "prevailing," how about "traditional" or "common"? I like "traditional" because I think it's important to convey that this view is not just common but also has been common for 100 years, and the doubts of one and a half scholars are really a recent thing. Levivich (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a false claim from Kemp. Kemp suggest that While Schinas is commonly portrayed as anarchist but this is wrong. Cause in Greek history oriented books(greek/english language), as i proved with citations from many historians, Schinas is portayed just as a madman, or a spy. None of Greeks historians, or from prominent Historians of Greek history like Gallant or Clogg says something about an anarchist Schinas. You can't pretend that Clogg/Galant doesn't count cause they wrote just a paragraph for someone that they are considered as a just madman and not 8 pages. It is not quantitative that matters but qualitative. The most prominent Historians that are in the most prominent universities, and who read Greek and not the NYT of 1913, say that he was a madman.
But Kemp has also right. Kemp suggest that While Schinas is commonly portrayed as anarchist but this is also true! Cause in anarchist/terrorist (ONLY english language) oriented books, this is what is major. I think Kemp uses as sources only English newspapers and English language terrorist/anarchist books. I think he don't even know the Greek-oriented history like Clogg/Gallant or Greek histrory language books.
Yes, Czar, your work is great- and the graphics are really convenient. I 'd kindly ask Levivich to merge text to the lede, (I am ok with both options) as he was the one who shaped the latest version. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, I made an attempt at merging Czar's sentences into the article. I also tried to change to Harvard footnotes but I failed miserably after a half hour and gave up :-) I don't have a problem include the Greek language sources like Clogg and Galant, by the way, or even to explain the difference in how Schinas is portrayed by English- and Greek-language sources, assuming we had the sources to demonstrate that. As I don't speak Greek, I can't comment one way or another on the Greek-language sources, but I trust Greek-speaking editors can handle that. Levivich (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Αντικαθεστωτικός is placing the article of greek WP as an external link! As it is well known that wikipedia projects are not Reliable Sources, I can not see the point of that. WP:LINKSTOAVOID point 12. Plus the greek article doesn not provide more info than this article and it is full of fallacies. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
it wasnt me who place the link but another user. The greek article has not fallacies. You have been banned from greek wikipedia for three months and now for one month for similar reasons. So i think you blame others for things that you did. Greek article is very good. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
How does it look now?
I've added page numbers and quotes for Kemp, Mattox, Newton, Jensen, Clogg, Gallant, Christmas and more. I think that's everything I have for sources for this article. Any problems? Any ideas for improvement? Thanks. Levivich (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Clogg and Gallant are not suitable sources, as they do not cover the subject significantly, plus their argument is being covered in more extent by other sources. But otherwise, it looks great and the refs are very stylish. Well done Levivich. I am considering sending this article for peer review, what do you say? Cinadon36 (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! About Clogg and Gallant, I was thinking about what you said, that we cannot judge sources, only weigh them. My feeling is that Clogg, Gallant, Jensen, and Mattox all deserve the same weight, because:
Richard Clogg: University professor of history, good publisher (Cambridge Univ. Press), writing a book about Greek history, one-sentence passing mention (technically, he mentions Schinas three times in the book in three separate sentences, but it's basically the same sentence each time)
Thomas Gallant (historian): University professor of history, good publisher (Arnold), writing a book about Greek history, one-sentence passing mention
Richard Bach Jensen: University professor of history, good publisher (Routledge), writing a chapter about terrorism history, one-sentence passing mention (technically, two chapters published in two different books, but it's basically the same one sentence in each chapter)
Henry Mattox: University professor, good publisher (McFarland), writing a book about terrorism history, one-paragraph (still a "passing mention" in my view)
I thought it would be best to include all of them, and cite them only to show "the view of historians" (Jensen/Mattox ref #29: anarchist; Clogg/Gallant ref #30: madman), without trying to say which historians are correct. (Mattox is also cited for some basic details about the shooting, refs # 16, 18 & 20, because his paragraph includes those details. I can't see a reason to separate one of the four from the others. I see all four as "passing mentions" in books about something else (not Schinas), but written by serious historians working at "real" universities and published by reputable academic publishers. It seems like if we keep some but not others, then maybe we are judging them ("right" or "wrong") instead of weighing them ("significant" or "not significant")?
If the choice is between keep all four or delete all four, I would rather keep them–I feel like when Kemp says "he is viewed as anarchist or madman," it's better if we can show the other historians who have those views. Otherwise I feel like Kemp's view is the only view that would be in the article. So my preference is to include all the historians, include their quotes, and describe them in a neutral way–let the reader have the information and decide how to interpret it.
All that said, I do not have strong feelings on this. If you (or anyone) thinks we should change the wording or how they are cited, or delete them altogether, it's OK with me. Even though I'm writing a lot about this, I don't actually think it's very important one way or another if these four sources stay or go.
What do you and everyone else think about this?
I think peer review is a great idea! I'm very new here so I've never done it before. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help, otherwise I will watch the page for it. Thanks again! Levivich (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I do not have strong feelings about using Clogg either, it is just I generally prefer using RS that deal with a subject, not merely mentioning it. Anyway, I can not see how it poses a problem, as the narrative of the article is not particularly disrupted by those two refs, IMO. Anywayz, as for the peer review, the page has to stay stable for a week or so and then list it for reviewing. I do not want to stop you from further improving the article though, finish what you feel you should do and we 've got plenty of time. Cheers! Cinadon36 (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Lede
Nicely done! First thought is that some of these statements are controversial or likely to be challenged, so might want to preemptively add a citation. I'm thinking, in particular, of the generalizations, such as how little is known about him.
Also, as a biography, I was expecting to read more about his life in the second paragraph, but I can see how it makes sense to go into the assassination there, since it's what he's known for. Might be better to get a little more to the point there by merging that paragraph with the first (making that paragraph about the assassination, or the details that a general audience would want to know about it). Then the new second paragraph could be about his life and how little is known about him. czar03:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I added refs and merged it into two paragraphs, and tried to make clearer "here's what we know (Para 1), here's what we're not sure about (Para 2)." Levivich (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Genocide in the Ottoman Empire: Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks, 1913-1923 edited by George N. Shirinian 1st Edition σελίδα 304 as drunkard
Born to Rule: Five Reigning Consorts, Granddaughters of Queen Victoria St. Martin's Press, 2005, Julia P. Gelardi "The assasin turned out to be a Macedonian lunatic who later threw himself out of a prison window to his death"
* Mark Mazower Salonica, City of Ghosts: Christians, Muslims and Jews 1430-1950 page 281, clarified that the culprit was a deranged Greek with a history of mental disturbance.
A Concise History of Greece By Richard Clogg "he was assasinated by a madman".
Thomas W. Gallant, Modern Greece;Brief Histories 1st Edition, Hodder Headline. page 129 A Greek madman espied.
IMHO the main view of Wikipedia artilce must be that he was a madman as major historians like Mark Mazower suggests. Of course we must present and the other views. Salonica, city of ghosts: Christians, Muslims and Jews 1430-1950is the most uptοdate english book for the history of the city (cited 505 times). Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I will try it. Thanx for your help. Please if i made a mistake in counting of citation don't misjudge me.
Mark Mazower Salonica, City of Ghosts: Christians, Muslims and Jews 1430-1950. 505 citationsclarified that the culprit was a deranged Greek with a history of mental disturbance.
M. Newton. A journalist? 5 citations in Google Scholar.
and some newspapers of 1914.
I don't suggest to delete anything. I suggest that Wikipedia main Voice should be, the Voice of Historians, and then present and the others opinions (amateurs, journalists, historians of law etc)
Clog or Mazower do not discuss Schinas, they do not even mention his name. Clog is portraying King George I. The same goes for Mazower who is discussing anti-Semitism in that specific paragraph. Cherry picking demi-half of a sentence to build the article, is wrong and out of context. Have in mind that these two historians, do not claim that the motive of the assassination was mental illness. Most Reliable are sources that deal with Schinas himself, dedicating the whole book on him, or even a chapter. That is the case of Kemp, whose book was published by a well reputed publishing house. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Clogg and Mazower are the top historians for history of Greece and they have together 1400 citations. Kemp is a computer expert with 0 citation. Schinas was just a madman as Mazower opinion is, he is not mentioned not even from Peter Marshall (author) in his history of anarchism. Why bother with a madman in the first place?
So Wikipedia main voice isn't from Mark Mazower professor of history at Columbia University expert in Greece History but from fringe theories from publications of 0 or 4 or 25 citations from journalists, computer scientistists, law historians, diplomats etc. --Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Schinas was not a madman. Having mental problems does not mean you are a madman. Moreover, having mental problems does not mean all (or even most) your actions are crazy staff. Mazower doesn't examine Schinas or his motives. He is a RS on Salonica, not on Schinas. Cinadon36 (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Mazower is the top leading expert historian in Greek History His CV in Columbia University.. 1400 > 30 citations. Schinas is just a small part of Greek history. There is not such thing as Rs on Schinas. All the historians of UK, USA, Greece says that he was a madman, or mentally ill. Also the historians of world anarchism don't even mention Schinas. But Wikipedia voice is based on computer scientists/diplomats/journalists that are considered as RS on Schinas the same time that they have all together 30 citations on Google Scholar. Fringe theories as primary WK voice. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
You have already made this argument and has been addressed. If you consider the answer inadequate, you should explain why. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Then, i fear that it works the wrong way. I fear that the opinion of a journalist/computer expert is the main Voice of EN:WP, and not the opinion of Mark Mazower professor of Columbia and leading expert of Greek History. It is sad, but i hope someone will correct this error. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
A lot of the citations used in the lead can be either moved to the body of the article, or outright removed, as they are covered in the article. As per MOS:CITELEAD you don't need to cite things that are covered in the article itself, and personally I try to avoid any citation in the lead unless absolutely necessary, and I'd argue a lot of these are not.
The fourth paragraph of the "early life" section starts by stating Schinas lived in New York, but it only notes his moving there after that. For the sake of keeping it easy to comprehend, I'd re-arranged that so you note the reasons for his emigration from Greece first.
The lengthy quote from Schinas in the "Death" section doesn't need to have his name and the year afterwards; by introducing it as a quote from Schinas it already covers those details. Same with the quote in the "Political" and "Personal" sections.
Overall not a lot to fix. It's a fairly comprehensive article considering there is not much information on the individual, and the use of both contemporary and modern sources is nice. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Kaiser matias. I am pinging @Levivich: who is the major contributor. As English is not my native language, I hesitate to make changes at "prose, spelling, and grammar" but I 'll see what I can do elsewhere. Cinadon3606:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for taking time to review, Kaiser, and for the ping, Cin. I'll take a crack at helping with these revisions over the next day or so. – Levivich 14:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Update: I did some of the easy stuff :-) – Levivich15:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The article states that Schinas may have been an agent of "Macedonia". This is problematic as there was no state of "Macedonia" at the time. Khirurg (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
"Schinas stated in an interview that in 1910, he was deported from Thessaloniki (then under Ottoman rule) by the Young Turks "because I was a good Greek patriot".[9] Botassi suggested another explanation for Schinas's departure: that Schinas was evading the Greek police following the closure of the Centre for Workingmen school in Volos."
This section seems confusing. Botassi is talking about Schinas departure from Salonica? If so, why mention the gr police. If not from Salonica, then where did he leave from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greece666 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
It´s better, thank you. However, it is still unclear IMO if he departed from Greece or Salonica. The interview gives an explanation about Schinas leaving Ottoman Salonica, and Botassi gives a reason why Schinas left the kingdom of Greece (unless he left Salonica bcs he was persecuted by the Gr police, but this seems like a weird reading of Botassi). One way around it, is to write "Schinas departure to the US" leaving open the question of where he departed from (Salonica or Greece). If someone has access to Kemp/Botassi, it would be great if they can confirm what exactly he means. --Greece666 (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes I see your point, it is confusing. I made another change to try to clarify–what do you think? By the way, Kemp and Botassi are linked in the article. Kemp is (partially) available as a Google books preview, and Botassi's account is reported in the 1913 New York Times articles. – Levivich15:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Referring to... "He may have been a medical student, teacher, unlicensed doctor, chemistry shop assistant, waiter, beggar or none of these."
Seriously? What was the author thinking? :) This sentence should be replaced with something like... "His profession remains unknown" or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.70.231 (talk • contribs) 00:48, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
W/r/t this sentence, does anyone think it would be an improvement to change it to "He was reported to have been a medical student, teacher, ...[etc.], but may have been none of these", or something like that? It may not be clear that the list of professions are specific things various sources have reported, and not just, like, a random list of professions. Levivich01:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I've shortened it in the lede but consider adding an inverted version in the prose: "His profession is unconfirmed but has been variously reported as ... XYZ." czar10:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Quest for literature in Greek
Books
Searching through Google Books
A book by Ioannis Mazis [5] on Ion Dragoumis, brielfy 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...)
A tertiary source Σαν σήμερα: Στη νεότερη και σύγχρονη ελληνική ιστορία (could be translated "what happened today in the modern and contemporary greek history) (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 paragraf 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"
[Οι λήσταρχοι: Τα παλληκάρια τα καλά σύντροφοι τα σκοτώνουν] 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".
These were the books I could retrieve through Google Books. Note that other people in greek history share the same name: "Αλέξανδρος Σχινάς".
Searching for Greek literature from greek wikipedia's article
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), it seems there is a mention of Al Schinas.
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) 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.
Cant spot any other books in greek that could be RS. So, as a summary- and pending the info on kordatos book- I couldn't find info that is missing from the article. Tomorrow or the day after, I 'll search the Greek thesis database. Cinadon3609:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
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. [6]. 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 [7]. 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.
Anastasiades (1944-) looks more promising though. He is a prof at Aristotle Uni of Thessaloniki- he teaches history of greek Constitution. (The best source I could spot for his bio was a bookstore's webpage. [8]) Publishing house is well know in Greece [9]. The book starts with the assassination of King George. [10] But I can't retrieve more details nor the text. We might ask from Resources Excahange, but I am not too confident that we 'll get a respond though. Both books are in greek and prob not available in mainstream libraries. Cinadon3608:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I haven't seen it, and looks like it could be promising. Would be great if you could get it if it's not too much trouble. Levivich05:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Might be a long shot but let me try. Also I expect this to be a newspaper clipping (same as BNF link below) so not anticipating too much. czar11:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't speak French and may very well be misreading it, but based on GTing some spots, I'm not seeing any detail about Schinas, plus the article reads like a eulogy (at least through GT), very positive about the king, lamenting his death, etc. Levivich05:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Here are a few I found on gscholar/gbooks: Kaloudis has a bit on context and impact, Mavrovitis could be used for a few details on George and Constantine in the months before the assassination[self-published source]. I haven't looked into Shirinian yet. West could be added to Ref 31 (examples of "anarchist") but I'm not sure if the article benefits from another one, or if West is otherwise worth including; same with van der Kiste. I can't access these: Peters, Vradis, Livanios, Kreuter, Jensen 2016, Lenz, Tsirkinidēs, and Zervas. Not sure if any of those have anything useful for this article. Over the next week or so, I'll start going through the ones I can access. – Levivich04:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Vradis has a single sentence: "In 1913, again in Thessaloniki, anarchosyndicalist Alexandres Schinas assassinated King George I." czar11:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't see Schinas mentioned in Livanios (which is a book review of The Edinburgh History of the Greeks, 1768 to 1913: The Long Nineteenth Century). WP:RX might be able to help with the others, but page ranges would be ideal. czar01:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find its TOC either. Hm. Well here's Jensen—brief mentions on three pages in the context of other lone actors. It didn't look useful for this article's purposes. czar07:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Could be useful for a sentence or two placing Schinas in the context of other early 20th c. political assassins? Feels like the article should tell the reader, somewhere, that this sort of thing happened once or twice a year back then. Levivich[dubious – discuss]07:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Just a quick update: I'm working on an expansion offline incorporating a bunch of the new sources found above, after which I'll update the to-do list with what sources have been checked, what hasn't been checked, etc. and we can go from there. Lev!vich03:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
News247.gr and journalist Χρήστος Δεμέτης (Christos Demetis) are borderline RS. I wouldnt consider them as RS but many users at greek WP do cite various articles from news247. It is a left-centrist media outlet (from my understanding). I couldnt spot its editorial policy nor any reviews of it. The greek site el:Ελληνικά Hoaxes that spots fake news has listed news247 in several occasions.[11] It is my feeling that they do not place too much effort on fact checking. Nevertheless, here is a summary of the article:
On 18th of March, aprox 17:15, Al. Schinas shot King who was visiting German Admiral Gopfen (Gopfen from greek Γκοπφεν, Demetis only mentions his last name) in Thessaloniki. Schinas was arrested and committed suicide according to the official view on May the 6th. Most prominent view is that he was an agent of foreign powers, but according to other views, he acted alone. The way Schinas died, fuels speculations on his motives. Demetis then tries to answer the question whether Schinas committed suicide or was killed. He says that Queen Olga (wife of King George I) visited Schinas two or three times in his cell. The last time he visited him, "she later got out of the cell looking crushed". Olga shared the information only with her son, Andrew, who himself never spoke publicly on the matter - even though it is claimed that privately, he blamed the Austrians for the murder of his father- without discussing it in extend. Olga asked high ranked priest Γεννάδιος Χατζηαποστόλου to visit Schinas for confession. He did so and wrote what happened in his memoirs in 1962. "I visited Schinas in his filthy cell, he had an active tuberculosis and was spitting everywhere. He told me he killed King because he was an anarchist. When I asked him if he was covering any other neighboring nation or other powerful country, he wad furious and insisted that he did it because kings are stealing the food of poor people and they are useless members of society. My conclusion was that Schinas was indeed an anarchist and as such, he was used by a foreign power. He was an intelligent man but felt into some contradictions." Demetis goes on and briefly mentions that the government (led by Venizelos) tried to bury the case as the act of a lone crazy man. Had the conspiracy theory being accepted, Thessaloniki would be endangered (Bulgarians and Turks were eyeing Thessaloniki). But in the long run, Demetis concludes, the death of George I had a grave cost at Greece because he might could prevent some of the misfortunes Greece experience in the forthcoming decades. Demetis also mentions that most historians tend to accept the conspiracy theory. The last paragraphs of the article talk about the first greek anarchists - mostly about Emmanouil Dadaoglou and Plotino Rhodakanaty (@Czar:, remember Dadaoglou?) Then, Demetis lists his sources: NYT, Kathimerini and a blog: https://eglima.wordpress.com/2007/12/15/george_3/ where the author Γιαννης Ράγκος is a journalist. Cinadon3608:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
www.thessalonikiartsandculture.gr – Cinadon36, do you think this (and the ones below) is a reliable source we can cite in the article? Please see also the #Photographs section below–this link, and the others below, have a ton of pictures. Do any of these links give information about where the pictures were first published? Enough that we can upload them? In general, are any of these worth further investigation? Thanks, Levivich (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Blogs – there are a number of them; I think some may just be mirrors, but I can't be sure; and they have a lot of images, but I'm not sure if they provide any provenance. So, not sure if any of this is useable/helpful:
Γιαννης Ράγκος is far from being considered an "established expert". I have read his bio here. [15] He is a freelance journalist and author of police fiction books.
School newspaper pankritio.gr---> not even remotely RS.
olympia.gr--->definitely no.
www.sophia-ntrekou.gr--->Yeap, it's a blog (Blogger)
Aristides Hatzis is a RS. He studied law but his MA was on "History and Philosophy of law"[16]. But I am not sure if we could use a slideshow as a source, coz for someone to understand what the slideshow says, he must listen to the lecturer. Anyway, doesnt say anything on Schinas apart from a couple of photos.
Hi all, I 'd like to open a new section to inform you all what Anastasiades is saying in his book. I am going to translate some parts, others I am going to summarize them, it might take some days, so pls be patient. :)
Αναστασιαδης Ολ. Γεώργιος (Anastasiadēs, Giōrgos O.) (2010). "Part B Chapter 2 Η δολοφονία του βασιλιά Γεώργιου Α' (1913)". ΤΟ ΠΑΛΙΜΨΗΣΤΟ ΤΟΥ ΑΙΜΑΤΟΣ, ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΕΣ ΔΟΛΟΦΟΝΙΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΚΤΕΛΕΣΕΙΣ ΣΤΗ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΗ (1913-1968). Επικεντρο (Epikentro). pp. 54–65. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |ISBN13= ignored (help)
The chapter starts on page 54.
"At the road of "Highness" where today's avenue of King George meets Agia Triada road (Holy trinity road), there is a marble bust of King George. He was having a walk with his adjutant, colonel Ioannis Fragoudis. Suddently, he was shot with an old pistol (κουμπουρα in greek, old pistol might not be the right translation), from close distance, by Alexandros Schinas.
During the chaotic situation that followed, innocent Ottomans Turks were shot instantly (on the spot?). People turned against Turks, Bulgarians and Jews...
Schinas, 52 years old, wearing ragged and dirty clothes was arrested by royal guards. He was questioned at the Police Station (Anastasiades calls it Διοικητήριο, which is an administrative building, not necessarily police station) and after some days he managed to escape from his cell and jumped from the third floor, which led to his death. The exact circumstances of his death are still unknown.
There have not been convincing answer to a series of questions
Why was Schinas let to watch the king for a long distance before killing him?
Did Schinas commit suicide or was he thrown out of the window?
Who put an arm on Schinas hand, who was later named as "unemployed", "anarchist", "card-game player", "loony", "alcoholic", "beggar","blackmailer"? (Worth noting that during those days he was staying in a filthy motel at Bardariou Street)
Going to page 55
How was the folder with the documents of his questioning burned while being transfered to Athens by steamship?
What did Schinas and Queen Olga discuss when they meet twice at his cell?
Why the grave of Schinas can not be found in any cemetery?"
I hope you are enjoying this as much as I do. It feels like watching a political thriller. Tomorrow I will translate/summarize more text. Cinadon3608:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
This is very interesting! Just FYI guys I am traveling this week and on mobile but will keep an eye on the talk page. Please let Interpol know I won’t be able to continue working on the investigation until next week. ;-) Levivich (lulz) 16:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Next in page 55
"Many scholars support that the murder of George I, was a plot organised by Central Powers of Europe (Germany and Austro-Hungarian Empire) so that his son Constantine that was friendly towards Germany as he was the son in law of Kaiser (Anastasiades says that Constantine I was the son in law of Kaiser, but if someone checks wikipedia articles, Sophia of Prussia, Consantine's wife, was daughter to Frederick III) But according to Spyros Markezinis, king George I was intending to step down from the throne after 50 years of reign, so his son Constantine would become king. (according to Wikipedia's article, George took office on 30th March 1863)....
Prime minister Ev Venizelos and ministers K Ractivan (διοικητής (=governor) of Macedonia) and Em. Repoulis (Interior Minister) did not provide sufficient answers to questions by members of the parliament, because they thought that details might jeopardize national interests. As N. X Charisis wrote "Little Greece had to pretend that Austro-Hungary had nothing to do with the murder"
Ok Levivich I informed the chief of Interpol about your trip, he told me that he wont tolerate any more delays, he is being pressed by the press. If you delay any further, he might pass the case to Inspector Clouseau. Cinadon3618:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Page 56:
This murder was the first political murder in Thessaloniki since its liberation (comment by the translator: City was liberated/captured by Greece in 1912) and give rise to a big If. If King George I hadnt been killed in Thessaloniki, should we had National Schism, the continual collusions of Venizelos's base and Royalists and the Aegean Tragedy? (comment by the translator: I do not know where the author refers to by using the term "Aegean Tragedy" Most prob to the consequences of Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922)).
History ofcourse does not care about if. But we can argue that this was not a minor incidence of local importance. This was a crime that surpuss the history of Thessaloniki and Greece judging from its direct and indirect consequences. As fr:Freddy Germanos (a known greek journalist) wrote in Eleftherotypia in 19/6/1987, "This murder changed our political history".
Worth noting that 15 years earlier, in 14.2.1898, at Falirou Street (now Syggrou Avenue) (translator's comment: well known avenue in Athens) 2 persons had ambushed king George in order to kill him. They failed and the two assassins were arrested and sentenced to death, they were executed in Nafplios Prisons. In his book The Bullets that saved the King(2006), Giannis Kapsalis argues that it was a set up orchistrated by the King himself in order to regain his prestige which was torn after the previous Greco-Turkish War.
Also worth noting that at the monument that was erected for the King at the place of the assassination in 26 Octomber 1916, Venizelos, Daglis and Kountouriotis placed a wreath at the monument with a note: "In the memory of ethnic-martyr and constitutional King George]]"
Thank you for all this translation, Cinadon36, and for keeping the Interpol chief off my back last week. Sounds like Anastasiadēs should be included in the article. I think a κουμπουρα or Kubura is a type of muzzle-loading, percussion cap, flintlock pistol used in the 19th c. in the Balkans. [17][18]. This book about the arms of Greece in the Ottoman period has a chapter called "Pistols: The Ledenica, Zlatka, Kubura and Prizrenac", but I can't find the text online anywhere. That differs from the press report at the time of the weapon being a seven-cylinder revolver. I posted at WT:WikiProject Firearms in case anyone there might have a good source that can confirm what kind of gun κουμπουρα is exactly. Levivich (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Levivich I am glad you find it interesting. I am not done with translation, it will take me a couple of days more. Oh, you interpol agents are very pushy! :) Cinadon3608:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Going to p57. p57 is a copied page from magazine "Ιστορία" (=History) July 1971. Super huge caps lock read: "Why did they kill King George I?" Cinadon3608:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
In page 58 Anastasiades quotes two primary Sources. Fistly, from the diary of F.Dragoumis (my comment: then a 23 years old, later became foreign minister of GR)
"They killed the king...In Thesaloniki order was kept, apart from the killing of some Turks and Jews by the surprised guards on the spot."
Then Anastasiades places a quote from the minister of Justice, Raktivian.
"The worst moment of my career was the phone call I have received in the 5th of March 1913, when police chief informed me that the King was assassinated...(now going to page 59)As it was later proven, this was not a conspiracy, but the act of a lone man...The only disorder that followed where the killing of some muslims by guards who thought that they were responsible for the assassination. To stop the aggression, we informed the public that the killer was greek, but it was hard to believe".
Page 60 now, it goes on with quoting Raktavian. Summarizing: The chief of security was blamed as he was responsible for keeping the king safe. But it was clear that he did everything as he should and the guards were close to King. We discussed it at the Parliament on 9 of December 1913. The only thing Chief of Security could be held responsible was that the assassin was let to commit suicide and the circumstances of the killing will never be revealed.
Ractivian also comment on Schinas. He says that Schinas never claimed he was an anarchist, he felt remorse for killing the king and he blamed fever for his actions. There is also no indication that he was socialist apart for some incomprehensable statements on equality of men and fair share for workers. (going to page 60- it 's an image, now going to page 61) Schinas was so poor that it could take a couple of days to find a small piece of old bread to eat. He was known in Athens as many University proffessors helped him pass the day. (page 62) Lately he found a place to sleep- in the house of a know lawyer, but was kicked out later because of blackmail. All circumstance surrounding the issues raised by the press have been answered: There was no ship/boat or a carriage at the spot of assassination. (going to page 63) Only 2 muslims were killed by guards, and some got wounded. No blood was shred. Schinas knew no foreign languages and has never pass the Greek - turkish borders.(going to page 64) Schinas never confess he had partners in his crime. What is written in the press, is totally lies.
Anastasiades then says tat author F. Filippou used the history of Schinas and the assassination of king George in his novel Αντίο Θεσσαλονίκη (1999). The end!
There 's a footnote of page 64. Whoever wants to search the accussastions of the press a little more, can have a look at Νεα Αλήθεια (6 το 11 of March 1913). There are also plenty of tributes on several newspapers and names 3.
Took a look at the image copyrights and they need some work. If one of you can take first pass at making sure the images have the basics, I can review for the trickier components. Each image needs to have (1) basics on its origins (when was it first published, by whom, where) ideally in the standard {{Information}} template, and (2) a copyright license explaining why the image is free use, if indeed it is. Many of the images just need more research—if it came from the NYT, link to the digital scan of the print so others can verify it (or get as close as you can so I can provide this). Other images are just lifted from random blogs without any details of their provenance. Each of the image scans ostensibly came from somewhere, whether a newspaper or a loose photograph in an archival collection. A website posting the image with no context lacks provenance. If you can't source the image, let's discuss because if none of us can find its origins, it should likely be deleted or checked if old enough for anonymous exemption. So, yes, take first pass and I'll help with the edge cases? czar16:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Czar, I've finished a first pass and expanded this section. I think the ones I've marked "OK" on the list above are ready for you to confirm. For the others, see comments in the relevant subsections. Thanks! Levivich (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Czar. Inscription "ΔΟΛΟΦΟΝΙΑ ΤΗΣ Α.Μ. ΤΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΤΩΝ ΕΛΛΗΝΩΝ ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΥ ΤΟΥ Α. ΕΝ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΗ" translates as: "The murder of His Highness King of the Greeks George I in Thessaloniki". There is also a paragraph of "additional info" at etsy.com, "Εκτύπωση του Εθνικού Ιστορικού Μουσείου της δεκαετίας του 1950, βασισμένη σε παλαιότερη λιθογραφία. Η δολοφονία του Βασιλέως των Ελλήνων Γεωργίου του Α' στην Θεσσαλονίκη την 5η Μαρτίου του 1913." It translates as "Print of National History Museum in the decade of 1950, based on an older lithography. The Murderer of King of the Greeks George I in Thessaloniki on 5th of March 1913". Cinadon3608:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I figured that the large text would be a translation of the text near it, but are you able to read any of the inscriptions in the corners of the print itself? Perhaps in this larger version? Looking for anything that would help us track down its authorship. czar11:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Bottom left corner, 1st row (within the painting): Can't understand what it is there. Seem to be Α/φοι (meaning "brothers"), then follows a word that is very hard to tell, and last is the world ΑΘΗΝΑΙ, meaning Athens, the capital of Greece. Seems to be the surname of the artists.
Bottom left corner, 2nd row: as already translated: "ΔΟΛΟΦΟΝΙΑ ΤΗΣ Α.Μ. ΤΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΤΩΝ ΕΛΛΗΝΩΝ ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΥ ΤΟΥ Α. ΕΝ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΗ" translates as: "The murder of His Highness King of the Greeks George I in Thessaloniki".
Bottom left corner 3rd row: "Εγεννήθη 1Χ Δεκεμβρίου 1945-Εδολοφονήθη την ΧΧ Μαρτίου 1913" translates as "Born in 1X December 1945- Murdered in XX March 1913". X--> some numbers are blurred.
Bottom right corner, 1st row: "Εκδόσις Κεντρικού Βιβλιοπωλείου Δρακου Παπαδημητρίου, Αθήναι, Αιόλου 203" translates as "Publication of Central Bookstore Drakou Papademetriou, Athens, Aiolou 203."
Bottom right corner, 2nd row: It is in french, apparently it is the same text as the bottom left corner, second row.
Bottom right corner 3rd row: "Η λιθογραφία ειναι από την συλλογή του Εθνικού-Ιστορικού Μ", that is "the lithography is from the collection of National-Historical M." (M for museum apparently).Cinadon3617:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Cin! I guess that gives us the publisher and some of the author's identity. I posted a message on the uploader's talk page on Commons asking if they had any info on it. Levivich (inane chatter) 21:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
It looks like both File:Assassination of George I of Greece, 1913.png and File:Alekos Schinas Killing2.jpg were republished by the National Historical Museum. They're by two different artists apparently (noted in the image files). Were they both originally published by Central Bookstore, Drakou Papademetriou, Athens, Aiolou 203? And I'm not sure that we have the original publication date, at least not yet. I c:User talk:Cplakidas#File:Assassination of George I of Greece, 1913.png contacted the uploader of the first image but they unfortunately didn't have any information beyond what was already in the image file, though they thought it was contemporary (1913). The uploader of the second image hasn't edited in 9 years. News 24/7 has these posters, too; not sure if they have any information about their provenance. Levivich (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@Cinadon36, are you able to read the artist's signature in the bottom-left of this image?[21] I think it includes an "X" and "1913"? If we have an artist's name, we might be able to work backwards to a book of prints. It's also possible that this was distributed as a postcard, so could look through archives for that. (And is the coat of arms in the middle/center the same as File:Royal Coat of Arms of Greece (blue cross).svg?) czar13:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
There appears to be a digital searchable version of the book here but I'm not having luck finding it by text searching (it's 500 pages long) Levivich (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@Czar: I did tried once more but no luck. I also tried to guess the name and I googlesearched possible names, but no luck. The first letter is K or X, apparently from the first name. Surname's first two letters are "Χα" (as Xa) but I cant help any more. There are 4 blurred letters and what strikes me is the last one, which it might be a "ζ" ("z"). Greek surnames do not end in ζ, so I think the artist may have used the first 6 letters his surnames. It is impossible to trace who he is. I will a friend at el.WP but I am not very optimistic. I am pretty sure that 's the coat of arms of the House of Glücksburg. See Coat of arms of Greece#Glücksburg dynasty and Second Republic.Cinadon3623:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to see what I can do from afar re: v. 14/15 mentioned above since in-person is out of the picture now. In the meantime, we don't have evidence of first publication (whether it was in 1913 or decades later) so while it's "probably fine", for FA scrutiny, my recommendation would be to remove it until its origins can be confirmed. czar04:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Photographs
File:Alekos Schinas Arrested.jpg and File:Alekos Schinas Set.jpg are photographs of Schinas that appear all over the place, along with many other photographs and drawings (some of which are used in the article and many more that are not but could be). The problem is nailing down their original publication source. I think it's L'Illustration, a French pre-WWII magazine, which I think is how they are identified by Thessaloniki Arts and Culture [22]. The only problem is the source says they were published in 2013, but I'm pretty sure that's a mistake and they mean 1913 (since L'Illustration stopped publishing in 1944). Of course, because nothing is ever easy for Interpol, the L'Illustration archives for Jan-March 1913 are missing: [23], or more specifically, restricted due to copyright, which Inspct. Clouseau believes may indicate that the photographs of Schinas are copyrighted. Still, do we have enough to say that these were published in L'Illustration in 1913? (News 24/7 has a larger version of Alekos Schinas Set.jpg.) Levivich (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me for geeking (Greeking?) out but that is so cool. Czar, do you think there's a viable argument for fair use of that picture to illustrate the section that is discussing the preservation of the ear and the hand? The reader doesn't really get the understanding from a description that one gets from seeing a picture of the ear and the hand. Also, at the bottom of the article, is that the murder weapon? If so, it looks like a revolver and not a Kubura. I'll update the first image now; that just leaves us hunting for File:Alekos Schinas Set.jpg – I went through April, May, and June 1913 of L'Ill and could not find it. However, I did find some good photos of George I's funeral [24] and they appear to continue mentioning the king's death for several subsequent issues [25][26][27][28] (search "Georges"). BTW, L'Ill is a gold mine of PD photographs and art–there are so many articles that could benefit from being illustrated with some of the photographs I saw while browsing. I think I found a new project for my to-do list. Levivich (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Fair use, probably not, unless some source discusses an important finding from one of those remains. But it shouldn't be too hard to get a free use copy—just would need to know someone in Athens who is willing to visit and take a photo. And yes, believe that is the murder weapon. For that remaining "Set" photo, we could keep trying other publications... I had no luck in the Illustrated London News or NYT but I wonder whether some French/Italian newspaper archives wouldn't have more illustrations. czar23:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
We might. Maybe it’s better to wait until later in the process to see if we have any other requests, so we can bundle them. Levivich (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I haven't been able to ascertain the original source of the sitting "Set" photograph. We have no proof of original publication so it's really just conjecture. I think it's passable for image review purposes but it can be potentially challenged. In that light, we already have other photographs so I recommend removing it. czar04:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Czar
email me ) for anyone who wants to go back and add those details with {{sfn}}. czar 18:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Done, also for the two quotes in the "Motives" section. – Levivich 15:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Sent czar 11:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
![[21]](https://web.archive.org/web/20200228131104/https://i.etsystatic.com/10979194/r/il/82cfe9/1365142439/il_fullxfull.1365142439_13rc.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}