Talk:Dragoman of the Porte

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dragoman of the Porte/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 12:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 12:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Enjoyable as ever -- a few pointers on prose and content, then images and sources. Will get to spot checks once we've gone through this lot. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Consider adding a transliteration to the Greek in the lead, to aid pronunciation. Should the μέγας be moved a bit later, to where we talk about it sometimes being called the Grand Dragoman?
  • Good point, done. Constantine ✍ 08:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• From the position's inception in 1661 until the outbreak of the Greek Revolution in 1821, the office was occupied by Phanariotes,: I'm not sure this was quite true (the Ghica family don't sound like Phanariots?) and, at any rate, it is much stronger than the framing we have in the body, that almost all subsequent Grand Dragomans of the Porte were of Greek origin.
  • The phrasing is deliberately chosen in the lede, as the Phanariotes were not just Greeks. As you say, they included families like the Ghica, who were not ethnic Greeks, but were culturally Hellenized and intermarried with the Greek Phanariotes. These are included within the ranks of the Phanariotes as 'Hellenized Balkan Christians'. Constantine ✍ 08:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Can we have a citation somewhere to use the word "Greek" in connection with the Ghica? I trust your knowledge here, but can also imagine this being a magnet for the various flavours of nationalistic IP editors who like to flock to Balkan articles. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Have edited this somewhat, to hopefully also explain what the Phanariots were. Constantine ✍ 19:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• We never actually explain what "the Porte" was -- I think that would be helpful.
  • Good point, added. Constantine ✍ 08:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• In the same way, I think it would help to explain who the Phanariots were at some point, and perhaps a touch about their wider importance to the Ottoman Empire.
  • Have added a very brief overview in connection with the comment above. Constantine ✍ 19:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• proficient in the 'three languages': very optional for GA, but I think the MoS would prefer double quotes.
  • Not for glosses, per MOS:SIMPLEGLOSS. Have added the appropriate template for clarity. Constantine ✍ 08:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Under MOS:SIMPLEGLOSS, a gloss comes after the foreign-language word, but this is hardly a major issue at this level. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Rewrote this slightly. Constantine ✍ 19:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• a mere interpreter: mere might be a little harsh on interpreters, who are after all very skilled people.
  • Fair point, altered. Constantine ✍ 08:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• As such the post was the highest public office available to non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire.: not really an as such: it doesn't follow from the Dragoman's wide responsibilities that there was no higher office available to non-Muslims. From what I remember, there was quite a delicate balance of power as to which ethno-religious groups held which high offices -- is there something to be said about that here?
• We haven't explained what a Grand Vizir was, and I think that's important.
  • Added a footnote. Constantine ✍ 19:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• The salary of the Dragoman of the Porte amounted to 47,000 kuruş annually: can we give an idea of how much that was?
• I'd suggest that a very brief biographical sketch of each dragoman might just qualify as a "major aspect" of the topic per the GACr.
  • @Cplakidas: any joy here? There are only a couple of blanks, and most of those have articles in other languages that could be used for a sentence or two. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for giving me the final push to finish with this. The situation is quite complicated in some cases, as sources disagree with each other, Stamatiadis is missing some entries altogether or has inconsistent level of detail. I had to go looking for other works, and found only the encyclopedic entries that I have now included. Not ideal, but enough. Constantine ✍ 11:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Images

By the nature of the beast, quite a lot of these.

• Could crop the image in Panagiotis Nikousios to get a portrait of him?
  • I tried it, but the resulting image is of very, very low resolution. Given that the image is entirely ahistorical as well, I don't consider this a loss ;).
• John Mavrocordatos has a (not great) portrait in his article.
  • Which is actually a version of File:Nikolaos Maurokordatos 1721.jpg, i.e. it is not really John Mavrocordatos at all.
• I haven't looked too hard for images of the rest, but any that exist online should be fair game by reason of age.
  • True enough, unfortunately those that were not also hospodars of the Danubian Principalities didn't get painted, or at least their images are much harder to find. I have had another look on the other WP articles, Commons, and online, and didn't find anything. Will definitely keep looking.
• File:Louis-Dupre-Pacha.jpg, File:Ion Vodă Caragea.jpg, File:Alexander Hangerli.jpg, File:Alexandru Sutu.jpg, File:Konstantinos Ypsilantis.JPG, File:Alexandru Callimachi.jpg, File:Alexandros Mourouzis.jpg, File:Μαυροκορδάτος ο φιραρής.jpg, [:File:Constantin Moruzi.jpg]], File:Alexandru Ipsilanti.jpg, File:Gregoire Ghyka, hospodar de Moldavie.jpg, File:Ioan Callimachi.jpg, File:Матeі Гіка Вв în AnȢл 1753.JPG, File:Nikolaos Maurokordatos 1721.jpg, File:Alexandros Maurokordatos o ex aporiton.JPG,  : a formality, but all need a US PD tag. You can use the PD-Art-two template for this.
  • Added, thanks for the template suggestion.
• File:Grigore II Ghica.jpg: need to use PD-Art here, as it's watermarked, so clearly this image itself wasn't published 100 years ago. Also needs a US PD tag.
  • Replaced with File:Theodor Aman - Grigore Ghica II.jpg, tagged it accordingly.
• File:Dragoman, or Chief Interpreter.jpg: ditto.
  • Done.
• File:Scarlat Callimachi.jpg: this has almost no information as to its provenance (and no US PD tag). Can we get some idea of where it's from, who made it and when it was published?
  • No idea, but I found a much better image, File:Σκαρλάτος Αλεξάνδρου Καλλιμάχης.jpg.
• File:Le Prince de Moldavie - Choiseul-gouffier Gabriel Florent Auguste De - 1822.jpg: licence works, but the US PD expired template would be simpler.
  • Done. Constantine ✍ 22:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that File:Stamp of Moldova md412.jpg: here, we could use PD-because to explain that the copyright holder (the Moldovan government) has waived its rights?
  • I have removed Racoviță. For the life of me I don't know how he got mixed up in there; he was dead by the time he was supposedly a dragoman, and Philliou's lit of dragomans contains no member of his family as an office holder. Constantine ✍ 22:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Some of the images have no sourcing for their author info (e.g. File:Μαυροκορδάτος ο φιραρής.jpg). For GA, I'm happy to take on trust when it's given, but you might consider tracking down something more authoritative than a Commons editor's word.
  • I have tracked down a good source, a collection of portraits edited by Nicolae Iorga, so expect to see new images or new versions of them soon. Constantine ✍ 22:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• File:Reisülküttab.jpg: we have this down as a 2013 publication. None of the source links work, but last I checked, that was long after the end of the Ottoman Empire, so we need to work out which, if any, licence we can use here.
  • The original design comes from Arif Pasha's 1863 Les Anciens Costumes de l'Empire Ottoman. It definitely has been 'updated', i.e. colorized and provided with a modern Turkish caption. I'll try to see if I can find the original piece. Constantine ✍ 22:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  I found the original here, and tbh it looks very similar. I am not sure that the replacement of Ottoman Turkish and French captions by modern Turkish ones alters the copyright of the work, but then again I am not well versed in copyright issues. On balance in case of doubt, I would leave it out. Constantine ✍ 07:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see any doubt here -- a translation is a derivative work under any definition, so you're completely right that it doesn't generate a new copyright. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• @UndercoverClassicist: I added/replaced as many images as I could, I fear that's all I can do for now. Constantine ✍ 11:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Sourcing looks generally solid.

• An endash needed for the hyphen in Strauss 1995.
  • Done. Constantine ✍ 19:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Eliott 1900 is not a scholarly source and is very old -- it is only used twice; any way to swap that out?
  • Eliott has been replaced. OTOH we now have an even older source in the article (Stamatiadis), but at least it is a specialist source (with all the caveats about a work written from a nationalist POV). Constantine ✍ 11:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• On Ottoman-Greek matters, my eternal question is whether Mark Mazower has written anything of relevance -- he has quite a lot to say about the Phanariots in general across his works (I remember reading a few for Kyriakos Pittakis)
  • He is indeed an excellent scholar, and thanks for reminding me; I will check his book on the Greek Revolution, it may have something relevant. Constantine ✍ 19:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Couldn't find much in Mazower, or in most of the otherwise excellent studies published in the last few years as part of the bicentenary. Have added some other sources, however. Constantine ✍ 11:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• Optional for GA, but I would put Hart et al in the bibliography -- I see the logic, but it's odd to treat only one source differently to the others.
  • This was added by another editor, which is why it is inconsistent both in format and in extent with the others in the list. I am waiting to see whether I can gather enough sources for the brief biographical sketches as you suggested above. May take a while. Constantine ✍ 19:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Replaced and removed now. Constantine ✍ 11:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Nice work -- I always enjoy reading your articles and learning something more about topics I thought I was getting a handle on. Spot checks to follow once the above is addressed.

Thanks, your reviews are always very well-considered and helpful. Constantine ✍ 19:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Any success with the images? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Spot checks

I am not having much success with the sources: would you mind giving the quotation that supports:

• The post was the highest public office available to non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire: (note 11; Strauss 1995, p. 190)
  • "for the office of Translator of the Imperial Divan...the highest public office open to non-Muslim subjects in the Ottoman Empire at that time"
• In practice, the latter [the office of Dragoman of the Fleet] often served as a stepping-stone to the office of Grand Dragoman (note 15; Vakalopoulos 1973, p. 243)
  • "με τη δημιουργία ενός νέου αξιώματος, του δραγουμάνου του στόλου, που συνήθως αποτελεί την προβαθμίδα για τη μεγάλη διερμηνεία"
• As few Ottoman Turks ever learned European languages, from early times the majority of these men were of Christian origin—in the main Austrians, Hungarians, Poles, and Greeks (note 1; Bosworth 2000, p. 237)
  • "It still remained rare for Turks to have any knowledge of a Western language. The first mention which we have of a Turkish diplomat with such skills seems to be that of Sa'id Efendi, who had accompanied his father Mehmed Efendi when the latter went as ambasador to Paris in 1721 and who apparently acquired a good facility in spoken French. Only in the early 19th century did it become reasonably common to know a European language, usually French".
    • Anything about the Christian origins, specifically the four named ethnicities, here? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Ah, sorry, yes indeed: "the earliest of these all...mostly from Europe and including Austrians, Hungarians, Poles and Greeks." The named dragomans we know more details of come from these four ethnicities. Constantine ✍ 17:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

        Great stuff. That's the last stumbling block, so passing now. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.