Talk:Phanariots/Archive 3

Untitled

Cool down!

Dahn asked me to check this out, and I noticed this page is full of insults of all kinds. I think we should all take a deep breath and chill. I believe the issues are as follows:

Should Constantinople be wikified?

For:

The Ecumenical Patriarchate which immediately follows in Phanariotes is not analysed in Istanbul, but it is in Constantinople

The Phanariotes themselves called it Constantinople (so does the Patriarch)

We don't say Fener-iotes, but Phanari-otes

The Phanariotes are the evolved first class Byzantines (read article)

Against:

The former article ends in 1453, while the article in its entirety covers events after that moment

There was no official convention similar to present ones before that date

The word "Istanbul" was not invented in 1930

I have to say this reminds me of the İzmir/Smyrna issue. Most of the Turkish editors usually stress that "Smyrna is only the ancient name", while most of the Greek editors say that the city was still widely known in English as Smyrna up to the 20s/30s, and it should be used. However, the Smyrna article only deals with ancient stuff.

I think both sides here have made some good points. Personally, we should link to Etymology of Istanbul#Greek, which gives a clearer analysis on the name itself. I'm also open to suggestions. Perhaps we should have a footnote or something. —Khoi khoi 17:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Against:

WP:POLICY states that a wikipedia article cannot be presented as a source or guide for other articles, and the reason behind this logic is made apparent in this dispute.
"Constantinople" had always been the official name of the Ottoman Empire's capital.
"Constantinople" had always been the official name of the Ottoman Empire's capital.

Miskin 17:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well...the "official" name would have been "Konstantiniyye", wouldn't it? Regardless, I don't really mind linking to both. This is a good example when we should ignore all rules. :-) —Khoi khoi 17:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Konstantiniyye' according to my sources means and is translated in English as 'Constantinople'. Miskin 18:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khoikhoi, a link to Etymology of Istanbul would make sense if the Phanariotes article were discussing word origins, but it is not. It is referring to the city, not its name. The city's name was indisputably Constantinople (in the Ottoman Turkish form قسطنطنيه, but it is never called Konstantiniyye in English) at the time of the Phanariots, and it is anachronistic to use 'Istanbul'. Would you say that the Winter Palace was built in Leningrad or that Emmanuel Kant lived in Kaliningrad? --Macrakis 18:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand why we shouldn't be using "İstanbul", but but the Constantinople article indeed ends in 1453. So the problem is that we have a huge gap between 1453 and 1930, perhaps we should link to Istanbul#Constantinople instead? —Khoi khoi 18:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't hurt to just link both articles! Like this: "Constantinople (Istanbul)". Who cares where one or the other article's history starts or finishes? Why should we punish the reader who wants to read history before 1453? And finally, what limits us from linking both? Where is that darn explicit statement for such anomaly in Manual of Style that Dahn keeps bringing up, and why should we follow it here that there is a clear need for linking Constantinople too? •NikoSilver• 19:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The solution was there, already implemented by me, but Dahn caused this mess with some clumsy and stubborn handlings. Per Nicos. Link both articles: "Constantinople (Istanbul)". Why should we not give the readers access to the Constantinople article? Because it ends in 1453? And what??! After all, it remained an official name of the city until 1930.

I told Dahn that this was a stupid reason to cause all this mess. But he did it! And now he is punished for a bloody link! If he likes this outcome, then Ok! I also told him to launch a poll! He didn't. He stubbornly insisted in his ambiguous tactics. What else can I say here? The solution is that simple: Link both articles. Use of Constantinople and its link are totally legitimate.--Yannismarou 19:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what the problem is here. The Phanariotes article needs to link to an article on Ottoman Konstantiniyye or Stambul (probably the best name in English), but there is no such article. Bizarrely, the "Ottoman Empire" section of the Istanbul article talks more about the Ottoman Empire itself (its conquests etc.) than about the city itself, surely the jewel of the Empire and one of the great cities of the world. It's as though the article on Rome skipped directly from ancient Rome to modern Rome and had only a few lines about Baroque Rome, half of which were about the wars of the Papal States and not about the city itself. So the real problem is not in the Phanariotes article, but in the Constantinople/Istanbul articles. --Macrakis 19:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect this problem of the Istanbul article solved anytime soon. I hear User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is making an effort over at Names of Istanbul. However, as editors of this particular article, we shouldn't care. The best solution is to go ahead and link both articles, because Phanariotes have ties with both periods and both names. •NikoSilver• 20:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Nicos (as I already said).--Yannismarou 20:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Predominantly"

I don't know what this word is trying to imply (ie, they were Greek but also some were something else? or, they were mostly Greek, but not quite?). In any case, since I can't pull it out of the rant sewer above, can you both (Miskin and Dahn) cite why (or why not) this vague word has to exist? I'm not taking sides or reverting for now (although I'd want that clarification at least, in case it stays). Kindly use the sub-headers below, to illustrate contrast, and please stick to the point. •NikoSilver• 13:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is trying to imply that in some rare cases, non-Greeks had become Phanariotes through Hellenisation (already mentioned in the article).

Must stay

Add sources here

Must not stay

It's ridiculous and misleading to keep such edit in the article's head [1] (source: Britannica 2006). This is another of Dahn's typical POV-pushing.
[2] (source: Columbia 2006)

Comments

Ooops, sorry Dahn!, I seem to have accidentally deleted your comment due to edit conflict (huh? shouldn't it stop me?). Care to post it again please? •NikoSilver• 13:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1)"most of them were Greeks". We have the Venetian Mourousis, the Albanian (or Aromanian - say some Romanians, or Arvanitic - say some Greeks) Ghicas, the Moldavian Callimachis and Racoviţăs, the Wallachian Cantacuzinos (yes, of Greek origin, but as disytant as to make them "Romanianized" in Miskin's terms - I remember daring him to translate Şerban Cantacuzino's name into Greek), and the Rosettis (who, although Greek in origin and culture, have been present in Moldavia since the 1670s - thus mirroring and surpassing the criteria needed by, say, the Callimachis to become "Hellenized").

2)"mostly Greek, but not quite". Where applicable, that too. I do believe that the entire article makes it clear where it is and where it is not applicable. The majority's choice inside what was to become Greece and its "unredeemed" area (no comment here) is not mirrored in present-day Romania (as expalined above). It is equally obvious that many Phanariote branches, many of them ethnically Greek, have chosen to refer to themselves as something else when the choice became apparent (of the Cantacuzinos, of the Rosettis, of the Ghicas) - paradoxically, Scarlat Callimachi was rejected by a conspiracy of boyars in 1821 for "being Greek" (his distant but direct descendant of the same name viewed himself as Romanian). I have have no theory to impose as to why that is: I just need the text to reflect the truth, in its precise context.

Let me stress this: it has been alleged that such edits are either pro-Romanian or anti-Greek; they are neither. They are a need to present a full picture. The implications of Greek culture and its status in the community have not been dismissed by me or my edits: I just have to stress that this does not really mean "ethnically Greek". I have no respect for edits that turn nuances and individual choices into concrete percentages (especially when they casually turn "predominantly" into "100%"), be they favouring Romanians, Greeks, Turks, or Sioux.

It is also apparent that Miskin has agreed to the wording. It is, of course, "hard to pull out of the rant sewer", despite the fact that the issue came about 100 times. People must think it is really enjoyable for me to repeat myself. Dahn 13:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I do not think how one is supposed to use the columns. What am I supposed to reference? Write down that some Phanariotes were not Greeks (already obvious to anyone, and already mentioned in the text of the article), or which Phanariotes were not Greeks (an arduous and superfluous task)? Write down that some Phanariotes did not chose to define themselves as Greeks - but as Wallachian/Moldavian/Romanian or even Russians (when this too is common knowledge, and this too is already present in the text)? For example, referencing that the reason for the rebellion of Tudor Vladimirescu's revolt was Scarlat Callimachi's appointment to the throne in Bucharest is equivalent to saying that the storming of the Bastille was the strting point of the French Revolution.

I cannot think of a better phrasing than "predominantly" (covering both those Phanariotes who were not Greeks but became Greeks and for those Phanariotes who were Greeks and chose to become something else). Dahn 13:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This argumentation above, lacks citational qualifications. What you must do, is edit the "Must stay" column above, and add:

Name of Author/Book
Exact quote for "some Phanariotes were not Greeks", or "Phanariotes were not 100% Greeks".

Note, I am not disputing anything. I am just asking citation. Thank you. •NikoSilver• 14:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So... if I can reference some/many Phanariotes actually not being Greek, I would still have to be looking for specific quotes of authors expressing their opinon on how "some Phanariotes were not Greeks" ad litteram? Because, if the latter applies, it will be a never-ending debate about opinions expressed; the former, which is vast (and quite obvious, and not in itself denied by anyone), begs the question "how much evidence will have to be presented to be considered satisfactory, and by whom?". Also: is the argument I'm facing "all Phanariotes were Greeks", or what? Dahn 14:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, no. In that case you'd have to cite two things: (a) X guy was not Greek (b) X guy was Phanariote. We don't care about his sister-in-law. Not a lot of evidence is required, just a couple of first class examples. •NikoSilver• 14:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every assessement should be backed by citations. So, if you assess that some Phanariotes were not Greeks, you should back this assessment with verifiable sources.--Yannismarou 14:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer you both: if this is what I'm asked, just one example will do (though, rest assured, there are several). Is this how I should proceed? Dahn 15:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what he says, I never agreed to the wording. His claims about Phanariote families choosing different ethnicities is a bunch of Dahnian POV. No family ever chose en masse to follow a different ethnicity, you think there's no Ghikas or Cantacouzinos in Greece? What did happen in extreme cases was that some members of those Phanariote families where assimilated in the societies they remained (Romania, Turkey, Moldavia etc), after the class of Phanariotes had ceased to exist, which is the natural sequence of events. This is another typical example of Dahn taking a special case scenario from Romanian history and using it as a representative of the entire Phanariote community (which is his opinion was based in Romania). Miskin 15:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without involving myself into the conflict, I would like to comment that no Phanariot family may prove their descent from the Byzantine aristocracy. Even the Kantakuzenoi. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

member of one of the principal Greek families of the Phanar, the Greek quarter of Constantinople (Istanbul)[3]

This is not about hiding the fact that in extremely rare cases Phanariotes had been non-Greeks who underwent hellenization (already mentioned in the article), it is about what should go in the article's head. Hence citing an example of Hellenised Phanariotes is irrelevant here. Apparently to Dahn a Hellenised person is not at 100% Greek since he's not the ancestor of Hellen. This is just Dahn's POV, not shared by mainstream sources. Considering that those people were nothing but a Phanariote minority of minorities, there's absolutely no reason to let Dahn's pass his POV into the article's head. Britannica's head is more than enough of a reference. Plus I personally have had enough of Dahn's POV-pushing and OR in this article. Miskin 15:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another source just for the heck of it:

Under the Ottoman Empire, Phanar was the residence of the privileged Greek families, called Phanariots.[4]

Miskin 15:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, taking in mind Miskin's rational argumentation above, we don't just have to list some (stray) examples, but according to WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, we have to explicitly cite something like "Phanariotes were predominantly (or mostly or in their majority or or) Greek". We are not in a position to assess (WP:OR) if these examples were significant to the extent of adding that phrase, if scholars who have dealt with this issue in detail haven't said so before us. •NikoSilver• 16:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, about Hellenization, that means they had become Greeks. No matter which way they became Greeks, if they self-identified as Greeks, then Greeks they were! See also WP:NCON#Dealing with self-identifying terms. •NikoSilver• 16:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I guess it makes more sense removing that "predominantly" from the intro. In case there are citations provided, feel free to add it back. •NikoSilver• 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica, Paparhegopulus and all my other sources say that Phanariotes were "Greek" and not "predominantly Greek". According to Paparhegopulus many of them were related with the Byzantine aristocracy.--Yannismarou 17:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two remarks of Paparhegopulus concerning the Chikas and the Kallimaches family:

Ghikas family was of Greek descent, but later εξεβλαχίσθη (I cannot translate that - it means the family acquired a consciousness of the "Vlachos nation") The family was coming from Albania. But they then started speaking Greek and had a greek identity. So, this predominantly Greek family at a certain point in the 19th century lost its Greek identity (according to Paparhegopulus).
Kallimaches family': Greek speaking family with a Greek identity, whose the pro-pro-ancestors were either Italian eiter Moldavian. But in 19th century they had a Greek identity. In 1740 Ioannis Kallimaches (Ιωάννης Καλλιμάχης) was also called with the Greek name Giannakis Bogdanos (Γιαννάκης Μπογδάνος).

My conclusion: Paparhegopulus says that the Ghikas family initially had a Greek identity and preserved the interests of the Greek population (especially, in Rhodes), but they lost their Greek identity in the 19th century. Kallimaches family had definitely a Greek identity. Make your own conclusions!--Yannismarou 17:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the arguments above make no sense in the context of the debate: I specifically asked if I was meant to prove that some Phanariotes were not Greeks precisely so as not to be faced with arguments of the kind "this source says they were Greeks" (since that source is not required to know or address all the issues involved, but we have the opportunity).

Now, concerning Paparhegopulus' quotes on the Ghicas et al., to me they show precisely the wishful-thinking pattern that is so familiar to nationalism. Let us all note that these are assessments of a given identity, not proofs of identity. And, again, all I have to prove for the word to stay there is that there is a controversy going on.

To the Ghicas. Neagu Djuvara (Romanian edition), says that they were an Albanian family (p.388). The relativeness of their Hellenization under all debatable terms is made clear by Dora d'Istria's choice to define herself as "an Albanian". I personally reject the Vlach lineage in favour of an Albanian one (especially since an Aromanian like Djuvara does not mention it). But these are perhaps besides the point in comparison with THE OBVIOUS. Yannis tells me I fail to understand whatnot about Romanian history and nobility surviving after the end of the Phanariotes (which would make it "non-Phanariote"). Yannis, I want your undivided attention, because I am not going to repeat this yet another time: the Ghicas reigned in this country as the first non-Phanariotes (the syntagm used is "domni pământeni",roughly "local lords"); you may find this information freely available everywhere, and present to the point of being sickening - if you want references, I'm not going to list them here when you can find them from all sides at the Regulamentul Organic article. I'm just going to add here their ascention happened [drumroll] at the same time as the Greek War of Independence (in fact, a while before the latter finished), so, if we dismiss them on the basis of "there were no Phanariotes at the time", all that part in the text about the role of the Phanariotes in the Greek War of Independence would need to go away as well...

The very point made by Paparhegopulus, beside its (again) comment on the facts rather than presenting the facts themselves, is of questionable acuracy. If one begins to state that they were [in origin] "either Italian or Moldavian", one has trouble with the sources, because it is known for sure that they were Moldavian - Djuvara, p.91 - "the Hellenization of the Romanian nickname Călmaşul". In fact, let me give you the quote in full: "Around the [Phanar] nucleus, two Romanian families gathered, the Racoviţăs and the Callimachis (the Hellenization of the Romanian nickname Călmaşul) and a family of a more distant Albaian origin [then the Racoviţăs and the Callimachis were to the Romanian origin!], the Ghicas - or at least a branch of the Ghica family. It is strange however that, among the most hated [by locals]Phanriote rulers were two Racoviţăs and a Callimachi. Besides, those who sinned [I assure you the verb is figurative] most through philo-Greek excesses were not the real Phanariotes, but, as the chroniclers of the time say, a Ghica (Grigore II) and a Callimachi (Grigore), while Constantine Mavrocordatos warns a [local official] for submitting a report in Greek, and not in Romanian. [...] the Moldo-Wallachian boyars are actually responsible for having forsaken their culture, in order to suit the tastes of their new masters and to mimick the customs in Constantinople." This implies several things about Hellenization: we may note that it was, precisely in the limits defined by Yannis, a widespread phenomenon in the Danubian Principalities - and yet, few would dare call the entire local nobility "Greek" (I could also comment that, in its relatively shallow limits, it is also apparently discarded by some undeniable Phanariotes - from the Mavrocordatos cited here to the Alexander Soutsos who was alleged by his contemporaries to have been poisoned for rejecting the Eterist cause - Djuvara, p.296).

I was previously told to exclude examples of people with a non-Greek ancestry from my review. That would mean what? Will it mean that those people whom we cal, Phanariotes had to be Greek themselves, regardless of what their fathers were? Or is it regardless of what their grandfathers were? Or is it great-grandfathers? And owhen does one "become Romanian" instead of Greek or whatever? Still, I heve this evidence for you to chew on: using the same reasoning for which "the Callimachis were no longer whatever they had originally been", the Rosettis were no longer Greek (even though the Rusets, who were logotheti to the Patriarchy, had become local boyars in the 1670s, Manolos Giannis Rosettis - I suppose this is the Greek spelling -, their direct descendant, was a Phanariote in Phanar... Djuvara, p.27), and neither were the Manu (Manos?) family of boyars (Djuvara, p.27) etc.

All I want is for a wording that evidences this complexity. This is not my POV, since I am not saying what those who failed to fall through the cracks were: it is just an evidence of the fact that some people failed to fall through the cracks. Some people, in particular situations that I have evidenced. No neutral person could ever accept that something, anything, ever is 100% this or 100% that. The amount of sophistry required to combat a common sense observation and necessary nuancing is bewildering. Dahn 20:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dahn, I am sorry. Your edit is huge! (again) Please spare us! I declare inability to read it! I declare inability to respond! Can you just drop the significant points below? •NikoSilver• 20:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I can't. I believe all of it is significant, otherwise I would not have written it. (I also note that, in all, it is just a bit bigger than what Yannis posted above) Dahn 21:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't (161 vs 915!! words - checked it in MS Word - Jesus!). To the point: I read it (again, but I can't promise for the next :-)). I saw absolutely no explicit reference to "Phanariotes were predominantly Greek". I am sure you understand that among all those scholars who have dealt with the issue, someone would have used "predominantly" or "mostly" or "in their majority" or whatever, if your secondary sources to the issue were considered significant. So if no third scholar has ever made such WP:OR, how can we decide to do it? For now, there are two very accredited academic sources that use plain "Phanariotes were Greeks" (Britannica and Columbia)!! Even if you found such a source, it wouldn't be worth including "predominantly" in the intro (under WP:NPOV#Undue weight). •NikoSilver• 21:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feared such sophistry, Niko, and this is why I cannot include my replies in neat colums that carry a bias. You have told me that all I needed to do was to list Phanariotes who were not Greeks, precisely because we are not comparing comments here. I have complied. Now you tell me that the opposite was the rule. Dahn 21:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the "undue weight" argument. Miskin has deleted all my other mentions of cosmopolitanism in the text. They were arguably undue weight. However, this mention clearly serves to establish a nuance that the reader is otherwise going to bump into throughout the article, without proper expalantion. Both Britannica and Columbia do not go into as much detail as this article can, and assessments are not pieces of evidence! Furthermore, I have given, among the evidence I presented, Djuvara's assement - who comes to essentially different conclusions (while investigating more). Dahn 21:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are (partly) right and I am sorry for the confusion, despite the fact that you keep insulting. I said:

Not exactly, no. In that case you'd have to cite two things: (a) X guy was not Greek (b) X guy was Phanariote. We don't care about his sister-in-law. Not a lot of evidence is required, just a couple of first class examples.

But after having read Miskin's rationale (before/after etc) I was quick to correct myself saying:

Hmmm, taking in mind Miskin's rational argumentation above, we don't just have to list some (stray) examples, but according to WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, we have to explicitly cite something like "Phanariotes were predominantly (or mostly or in their majority or or) Greek". We are not in a position to assess (WP:OR) if these examples were significant to the extent of adding that phrase, if scholars who have dealt with this issue in detail haven't said so before us.

and:

Also, about Hellenization, that means they had become Greeks. No matter which way they became Greeks, if they self-identified as Greeks, then Greeks they were! See also WP:NCON#Dealing with self-identifying terms.

All of that was before your response. I feel I have the right to request you to actually read my very laconic comments, before you write your diatrebes! Now the other subject about you and Miskin, I am not aware of, but I'll be glad to help if the issue is presented in a different section (because we are done with this one). •NikoSilver• 21:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, when in nationalist conflicts, immediately interested sources such as Djuvara and Paparigopoulos are considered partisan sources. You need to come up with a third party source. Thank you. •NikoSilver• 21:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is unacceptable. Why is Djuvara "immediately intersted"? Because he is a researcher? Is he a nationalist? Does he not bring proof to back his statements? Does he make accusations or controversial claims? Dahn 22:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) No person and no source can be expected to answer a specific question that some user on Wikipedia came up with, and especially to formulate its answer in a specific form. Your request is equivalent to me asking you to prove that each and every on of the Phanariotes identified himself as a Greek (especially since Djuvara seems to specifically indicate that not all did). 2) I have proven that some Phanariotes were not Greeks, or at least arguably not Greeks (or at least argued to have not been Greeks, which is basically the same for a NPOV attempt). 3) The debate about Hellenization remains open - I wish to indicate again that Djuvara mentions it was a phenomenon synonymous with a cultural mood, and that it had a punctual applicability (not to mention that the Ghicas and Callimachis, for example, adapted and discarded Greek culture in the space of one generation - which should make the whole issue of them "being Greek" utterly absurd if posed in these terms. 4) The implications of Hellenization as you deduce them would qualify just perfectly under "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position".

I cannot be expected to answer to arguments that keep changing. And, as I have said, the parallels offered do not quite work, as neither of them goes into details that are actually relevant here. Dahn 22:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, "predominantly" translates as "virtually all". If even this formulation is not NPOV... Dahn 22:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dahn, I am sorry that I can't convince you. You didn't prove anything. You just cited that a Romanian scholar said that some people were not Greeks. Nobody says that along their 'Greek' heritage they didn't drop as well the 'Phanariote' one. And yes! Djuvara is a Romanian (same as Paparigopoulos is Greek) and they are not accepted here as WP:RS (for this kind of issues). Find a third party source please, and I will be with you. Kindly assume the assumption of good faith!! •NikoSilver• 22:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niko,a source will never be "less credible" for belonging to a nationality, and the wikipedia rule you quote does not even appear to say that. I use Occam's Razor to counter the belief that all Romanian sources are "biased", especially since the Romanian POV, as I have said before, actually views all Phanariotes and their descendants as "Greeks", despite historical proof that the situation was more complex.

Having said that, I will point out again that the issue of "other than Greek" refers specifically to ruling Phanariotes, as well as to their descendants. Furthermore, the question of Hellenization relies on a Greek historian's opinion, and was expanded in the form we have to dealwith by the personal theory of a Greek user as to what that should imply. In fact: two sources say that the Ghicas and the Callimachis were not Greek, the Greek source adding "but they were as good as Greek". Without bias: which one reflects an opinion? This especially since the other source does not even begin to say "but they were as good as Romanian".

As I have said, I cannot and should not answer to pardigms that keep changing. Dahn 22:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR again. Sorry, unacceptable. As per WP:RS, you're right! It's in WP:V:

WP:V#Sources: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims require stronger sources."
Also check: WP:INDY -- all of it.

Thanks. •NikoSilver• 23:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the original research, Niko? And what is the "outlandish claim"? And what part of Wikipedia:Independent sources does Djuvara conflict with? Dahn 23:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:OR is your persistent analysis that since X was called by D a non-Greek, then "predominatly" should be used (despite the fact that we have two perfectly accredited verifiable, independent, reliable sources that state simply "were Greek" -Britannica and Columbia)
Outlandish claims are all claims related to ethnicity/nationality
Djuvara (and Paparigopoulos to repeat) conflicts with the TITLE in WP:INDY and with the word "THIRD". •NikoSilver• 23:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you were simply speculating.

First point: so is the belief that it should not be used because Y called the same X "a Greek" (for debatable reasons), amalgamated with the supposed "verdict" of vague comments in that are not actually taking this aspect into account.
Second point: says who? And, if this is the case,the alternative would be to make no claim about ethnicity.
Third point: says who? Who is a party here, and how did you come to the conclusion? (Did Djuvara and Paparigopoulos clash on this issue? Do Romanian sources and Greek ones systhematically compete for the world's attention?) I have just given you a brief reference too what the claims of Romanian nationalism actually are. Your point is equivalent to the belief that a Jewish historian is not a neutral source on the Holocaust. Dahn 23:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOT in the intro! WP:NPOV#Undue weight!
The word "THIRD"!
Ha! Greek historians are not considered reliable for the Pontian Greek Genocide, same for Armenians and YES Jews!

•NikoSilver• 23:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be "undue weight" if I were to have written "some where Greek" or something of sorts. It is not ""undue weight" if I state a reality in its precise context.
I'll ask again: who nominated you to tell us what the "parties" are?
If you are accusing Djuvara of writing propaganda, stress out the idea you controversial suspect he supports. Just being Romanian does not cut it, since you have failed to prove that this is an issue contested between Romanians as a whole and Greeks as a whole. If you are not aiming for proving such things,nothing in those rules justifies your pretentions. (And what may be true for the Pontian Greek genocide -I personally blame it on what I see as the Greek historiography's habit of writing propaganda- is not true for the Holocaust, where the Wiesel Commission is cited as a source, as are Yisrael Gutman, Michael Berenbaum, Yehuda Bauer etc.)Dahn 00:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would be undue weight and a POV, so don't waste your time any further by trying to explain to us what you think that we don't know. The rarity of hellenisation cases has already been mentioned in one section, it's weasel-edit to stick under a POV interpretation (ie Hellenised != Greek) in the head of the article, especially when the most prominent encyclopaedias don't. I'm not citing from any books because this is not content dispute, it's a procedural encyclopedic subject: the article's head. We're therefore following common encyclopedic policy. End of story. Miskin 01:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either you are contradicting several of the "we" you mention, or you're just typing random letters. Plus, I do not know who dictates that "policy" and why. What I did was to present evidence that I was asked to present - you may go ahead and debate its significance, but I think it is clear to anyone that you simply want to imply that something verifiable did not in fact happen. Furthermore, you know only too well that the section about "Hellenization" and whatnot refers to solely to the relation between Phanariote rules and Romanians, which is only a segment of the debate. End of story. Dahn 01:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See straw man. My argument is not that Djuvarna is writing propaganda, or that there has to be a Hellenic/Romanian conflict on the issue. My agument is that WP doesn't accept non-third-party sources as verifiable in an ethnicity debate. And even if it did, (which it explicitly doesn't), it would be undue weight to put such minority, interested party opinions in the intro of the article, since we have two accredited independent, verifiable, and reliable sources that have dropped your thesis by stating explicitly that "Phanariotes were Greeks". Again: if prominent third-party scholars who have extensively dealt with the issue have not performed that original research in claiming "mostly" or "in their majority" or "predominantly" or even "virtually all" nowhere in their texts, we cannot give it the weight of including it in the intro of the article. Now what part exactly do you disagree with? If it is WP policy, then go ahead and post your complaints in the respective policy's talk. Kindly stop it. At last! •NikoSilver• 10:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to clarify my previous edit: I don't take any position for the time being about the use of "predominantly". I just summarize Constantine Paparregopoulus's analysis. He says:

The Ghikas families was hellenized Albanians who during the Greek War of Independence (19th century) had lost their Greek identity and language and were speaking Vlachika, having acquired the national identity of Vlachoi. In the 18th century they were speaking Greek and had a Greek identity. But not in the 19th century.
The Kallimaches family was totally henellized and preserved their national identity and language during the 19th century.

I don't take a position pro or against the "predominantly". I just expose what a Greek historian says and I let you make your own conclusions. I'm happy to read further historical evidence of this period (Paparreogopulus was a historian who lived during the 19th century - so, he knew his contemporaries). Thank you!--Yannismarou 13:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understood the "points" the very first time myself. They are both subjective and empirical observations, based on terms that are themselves debatable and debated (furthermore, the notion that Paparigopoulous also counts as a primary source is bewildering).

Let me note that the comment about the Ghicas/Ghikas is purely idiotic: the historian begins by stresing that "they were Greek in the beginning" (for which he has no prof, and which is certainly not "his contemporary period" for him to have more expertise than others; and let me add: how convenient!), then jumps in the pool saying that tey "began speaking" what I take to mean "Aromanian" in 1821. However, it is common sense knowledge that the Ghicas in 1821 did not "become Atomanian", but rather "became Romanian" and "became Albanian" respectively (so what the hell is Paparigopoulous talking about?!). Oh, btw: does Paparigopoulous mean to say that the Ghicas began speaking and acting Vlach during their time in Istanbul?!

Again, what we have here is sources saying "some were non-Greeks", with one source (the one using nationalist rhetoric, may I point out) saying "yes, but it did not matter". On a side note: Yannis, we agreed, per your arguments, to dismiss the relevancy of post-1821 identity choices to the Phanariote period discussed; therefore, all comments about "what the Callimachis were after 1821" ("preserved their national identity and language during the 19th century") have no place here. However, be aware of the fact that the Callimachis inc\side what is today Romania continued to live and breathe at the time Paparigopoulous was twisting the truth, and began/continued to consider themselves "Romanian". But, of course, Paparigopoulous did not bump into them when fabricating his point. Dahn 11:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Crucial role" of the Phanariotes during "Ottoman rule" and "Greek war of Indipendence"

There is no question of whether these comments are "parties". Furthermore, you will note that the two sources involved (Greek and Romanian) both cite examples of Phanariote who were not Greek, except one says that it did not matter. I do not go and comment as to what the "implications of Hellenization are", and I cannot account for the sources saying, despite the evidence, that they were all Greeks - except perhaps to say that neither of them goes into as much detail as it ought to, and as this article can. Where do Britannica or Columbia say "Along with the church dignitaries and the local notables from the provinces, Phanariotes represented the ruling class of the Greek nation [sic!] during Ottoman rule and until the start of the War of Independence. During the latter, Phanariotes played a crucial role and influenced the decisions of the National Assembly, the representative body of the Greek revolutionaries, which met on six occasions between 1821 and 1829." If we're deciding what is mentionable in the lead per succint sources, well, apparently both sources considern these events insignificant. So you tell me more about the lead, I'm dying to hear it. Dahn 11:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Easy. See these third-party, verifiable and reliable sources for the main idea:

Columbia, Phanar: They came into prominence in the late 17th cent. and held influential positions until the Greek war of independence began in 1821.
Britannica, Phanariotes: ...exercised great influence in the Ottoman Empire in the 18th century. and Phanariotes also dominated the administration of the Eastern Orthodox church and frequently intervened in the selection of prelates, including the patriarch of Constantinople.
Britannica, Alexandros Mavrokordatos: statesman, one of the founders and first political leaders of independent Greece.

Oh, and regarding your last minor change:

Britannica, Phanariotes:They were also appointed hospodars (rulers) of the Danubian principalities, Moldavia and Walachia, vassal states of the Ottoman Empire during the period 1711–1821, which is, therefore, known as the Phanariote period in Romanian history.

...which I am going to revert, of course. •NikoSilver• 14:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only Britannica but also Svoronos and Paparregopulus who verify these assessments. I don't understand why you question the leading role of Phanariotes during the Ottoman rule and the Greek War of Independence. These things are beyond doubt. About the Ottoman rule see the sources I mention. Phanariotes for a long period were the leading class of the Greek nation (that is also said, among others, by Svoronos who is not a nationalist but a leftist historian). About the Greek War of Independence, I haven't yet written the relevant section (I hope I'll be soon able to do it), but Phanariotes dominated the Geek revolutionnary governments and their role was crucial. I just mention that two Phanariotes, Mavrocordatos and Negris were key figures in the these revolutionnary governments and in the National Assemblies of the Greek revolutionists. As a matter of fact the disputes between military leadership and the traditional ruling classes (Phanariotes, clergy and local nobles) during the Greek War of Independence is a very popular topic among modern Greek historians. Just see the articles Mavrocordatos and Prince Alexander Mavrocordatos, in order to see some aspects of the important role of Phanariotes during the Greek War of Independence.--Yannismarou 18:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning anything (except the absurd formulation "of the Greek nation [inside the Ottoman Empire]", which implies that the Ottomans were assigning leadership per nation... which they did not even do after the Tanzimat). It was implied here that I am not allowed to introduce a relevant detail in the lead because it does not confirm with succint depictions, even though two more detailed sources clearly deal with it! Now, if thgese are the terms, you will note that the sucint depictions have nothing to say about 1821, the Grek War of Independence, nor the "governing class" attributes. So you tell me more about the lead, I'm dying to hear it. Dahn 10:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the anachronism of the word "nation". I'll try to rephrase. For the rest of your comment about 1821, again, read the quotes from the sources above. •NikoSilver• 10:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not contesting any information provided. I am, however, saying that this article's lead goes into more and more accurate detail than the entire Britannica and Columbia articles. Therefore, the latter two do not indicate anything to me about how much should be kept in the lead, and cannot work as templates for the latter. Now, this implies that the current lead has chosen to go beyond superficial, en masse thinking; since all sources that go beyond it (including Greek sources) deal, in one way or another, with examples of Phanariotes who were not actually Greek, I wish for the supposed parallel not to employed anymore. Dahn 11:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see, you're not contesting that information provided, but WP contests the information provided from non-third-party sources related to ethnicity. Again, read straw man. Nobody said that if it is not included in someone else's lead, it can't be included here either. What we said, is if this specific ethnicity issue is included only in these non-third sources, then we cannot include it, especially in the lead. BTW, those quotes are from the lead. •NikoSilver• 11:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is not controversial in itself, it belongs there, just as all that sausage about their role inside the Ottoman Empire. Go ahead and prove that the information is controversial, when it is commented by all sources who detail the matter - including Greek ones. If this concerns style, then start moving out of the lead all the stuff that Britannica does not refer to in its entire article. Dahn 11:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity information = controversial information by all definitions! Even if "the role in Ottoman Empire" was controversial (which it definitely isn't) it is included by third party sources also. •NikoSilver• 11:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus! Again with this? All sources that deal with the topic on what is more than a superficial level deal, in one way or another, with the issue of Phanariotes who were not Greeks. The controversy, as far as I can see, is related to what they were instead, and to how much Hellenization was implied - this, however, is a controversy that only Paparigopoulos contributes to, since Djuvara does not provide his POV as to what those things meant. Now: the sentence as I read it says that they were predominantly Greek; this indicates that, however close of far it may stand, a limit to the Greek identity as present or adopted was present (for ever, or for some time) - which is, again, what all sources that deal with the topic to a sufficient level do agree with! Not only that, but virtually all other references to them in the article indicate their [chosen or not] Greekdom as the rule, so the supposed "subversive tone" of my edits is a straw man.

Sources not dealing with this topic do not deal with much: if you are to follow them, then do drop all the facts which they seem to consider irrelevant. Dahn 12:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And here: "Of critical importance to the ultimate success of the national movement was the profound transformation that Greek society was to undergo during the course of the 18th century. Significant among these developments was the rise to power and influence of the Phanariotes, a small caste of Greek (and Hellenized Romanian and Albanian) families who took their collectiv..." Britannica on Greek history Dahn 12:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At last! I told you I'd be with you if you found a third-party source. I'm adding that word myself. :-) •NikoSilver• 12:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I also said that at least two families (Callimaches and Ghikas) were hellenized! But Dahn didn't pay attention to this detail in order to support his arguments!--Yannismarou 13:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually following the debate, Yannis? Dahn 13:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so! At least I follow your bold letters!--Yannismarou 14:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! And I never said I agree with the "third party source" argument of Nicos! When a Greek source is in your favor why shouldn't we accept it? Hmmm?--Yannismarou 14:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer to both of you, neither the Greek, nor the Romanian, nor the third-party source state that "predominance" in their intro. They elaborate on it in the text that follows, while the third-party one, explicitly states simply "Greek" when it comes to introducing the Phanariotes. Likewise we should do here, but I am really tired of this silly debate and put "predominantly" myself to end it. •NikoSilver• 14:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The analysis of the ethnic origins of Phanariotes is very complicated; that is why I think that the "predominantly" has a certain basis. Most of them were Greeks, but whta about the hellenized or those who lost later, in the 19th century, their Greek identity? Veeeeeeery complicated matters!--Yannismarou 15:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hellenizations are nothing new, how many times do I have to repeat this?? Dahn is trying to turn this into a content dispute, which is far form the case. The point is that neither Britannica nor Columbia nor any other source I've seen have questioned the Greek character of the Phanari families. The Hellenization cases are rare, and they're not considered as something "less Greek". Hence why they don't appear in other encyclopedia's heads, and for the most part they're not mentioned at all. Miskin 16:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we accept that Phanariotes were "predominantly Greek", then we should accept that the Greek war of independence was in fact a "partly Greek War" (considering people such as Botsaris, Kolokotronis and Bouboulina were leading figures). The proof to what I'm saying: Since Britannica acknowledges it, how come it's not mentioned in the article's head? Heck, it's not even mentioned in the Phanariote article at all, but in a section of another article. See 'undue weight' under NPOV. Miskin 16:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although rarely occurring, reigns of local Princes were not excluded on principle. This situation had even determined two arguably hellenized Romanian noble families, the Callimachis (originally Călmaşul) and Racoviţăs, to penetrate into the Phanar nucleus, in order to facilitate and increase their chances to occupy the thrones, and later to successfully maintain their positions.

As you can see this is already treated in the body of the article, which is more than enough to cover the subject. Sticking it in the head by Dahn's POV interpretation (i.e. 1% of Greece is Hellenised Albanians, therefore Greece is a predominantly ethnic Greek country), is plain POV-pushing. Nikosliver, check all my previous edits, I never debated on the factual accurracy of Dahn's sources, I debated on the undue weight that has been giving them. Miskin 16:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that this is a complex issue and I cannot exclude the use of "predominantly". Maybe we should throw a poll, whose the result we'll be respected. And, of course, I don't agree with the last edit of Miskin who reverted "predominantly". I highly esteem Miskin and respect his arguments, but I must say that this revert was a unilateral move against the conclusions of this discussion and, therefore, I cannot back it.--Yannismarou 17:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This exact wording ("predominantly") is Dahn's personal edit, I can find the exact diff that proves it, the article didn't use to be like that, it used to have Britannica's head until one day Dahn changed his mind. Two highly esteemed encyclopedias already agree with my definition, why should we trust personal Dahn's opinion over them? The Greekness of the Phanariotes and some Arvanite leaders of the Greeks Revolution is defined in terms of cultural criteria, not racial. If the subject is so complicated as you claim, then how come it is straight-forward in other encycopedias' heads? I can't believe that you agree that the question of the racial purity of a Phanariote minority can be a subject of debate on the Phanariote community? When the Greek revolution broke out the Porte accused every single member of the Phanariote community, they didn't exclude the ones that were not racially pure Greek. At last, this is not the Hellenistic age we're treating, it's the age of nationalism. This is something fundamental here. Miskin 17:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that history. I think Yanni that Miskin has a valid point. •NikoSilver• 17:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not make anymore edits before a consensus has been reached. For the time being there are two sources versus ZERO. Dahn's source (which happens to be the same as mine) concerns something that is already treated in the article (repeating for the 88th time), and has nothing to do with the head of the article. Maybe I've been misunderstood by some people, but I never debated on what Dahn is currently trying to prove. I was the one who introduced the term "Hellenization" into the article, precisely because I'm aware of its use and weight within the scholarly sources. Needless to point out that Daniel (as he said himself) despises that term, and therefore would normally avoid it at all cost. Ironically enough he now brings it up as some kind of source, for something that I brought up. Again, I'm debating on the 'undue weight' of Dahn's interpretation of those Hellenizations, not their actual factuality. Miskin 17:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between me and Greek users is that I do not use terms such as "racially pure". Not only I have proven that the talk about "Hellenization" is not applicable to several of those rulers (at the very least, to the Racoviţăs), while it is applicable to people falling outside its pale (and whom nobody considers "Greek" - see Djuvara on the topic of Wallachian nobility) -btw, this precise vaguery is why I dislike such terms myself, as I see you're wondering-, I have also pointed why the term is two be used in front of two different sets of arguments -waiting for Niko to change the paradigm again.

I wish to warn Miskin of two things: my personal distate for nationalism (which he claims to share), and the fact that he is misusing all the points made by those historians who do not have an agenda to support. The proper perspective, starting from such arguments, is here: if nationalism is a concept ultimately brought forth by the French Revolution, and if some sort of cultural identity was present as early as the Renaissance, it means to twist the point when one says that "ethnically Greek or not, they chose to view themselves as Greeks", for obvious reasons:

"being Greek" did not carry the same meaning, and was not as clear-cut before and after the 1820s. On one hand, saying "someone speaking Greek was Greek" is like saying "the entire medieval Europe was Latin" or "all Muslim clergy is Arab" or "all educated Japanese were Chinese"; it also disregards the fact that we know for sure some also used other languages with the same ease.

They were not residents of Greece, but of the Ottoman Empire. of which they were the backbone.

Furthermore, since we are not writing history backwards, one would have to go and prove that each and every Phanariote felt he was Greek back in the 1700s, and would have to define what "being Greek" meant for each of them.

I demand your attention: I personally, as would Romanian sources, would not have anything against many to most of the Phanariotes having in fact suggested they were Greek, and using that in a sense very close or identical to the modern one; but nobody can say for sure, and everyone can point out that different identities also surfaced before (see the Cantacuzino claims and their notwithstanding status as "locals" in Wallachia before the Phanariotes), during (see the sources who claim that the Ghicas favoured and were favoured by a network of Albanian officials; see the conflict between Nicholas Mavrogenes and the Phanariotes; see the contemporary speculations of Soutzos having been killed by the Eteria; see your source, Svoronos, on the issue of "class identity"), and after (already discussed to death).

Already-present mentions of different origins, as I have said before, touch the topic of non-Greek presences on the Principalities' thrones after 1711, not the Phanariote-Greek issue. At least two sources I have mentioned make clear, immediate, and prominent mention of the non-Greek Phanariotes, and talk of "Hellenization", despite Miskin's (and Paparigopoulos') conclusions, does not prevent any of the quoted commentators from mentioning the words "Albanian", "Romanian" etc. (note that the lead here does not mention ethnicities by name, and is less secure about such definitions than even the factually wrong wishful thinking about ethnicities in Paparigopoulos). Dahn 19:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is outrageous. I don't believe you are flooding this issue again with your theories. For the last time: the partial-non-Greekness of some Phanariotes is and will continue to be mentioned in the article, but it has absolutely no place in the lead. Unless you cite adequate neutral sources that call Phanariotes "predominantly" Greek in their intro, the word stays out of it. To remind you, you have to match the accredited verifiable, independent, reliable sources of Britannica 2006 and Columbia 2006. If you are not happy with this, I suggest you try to build up consensus and alter the rules for WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:NOR. •NikoSilver• 20:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are avoiding all my points, Niko, and I'm getting quite tired of it being implied that you are a neutral editor. You asked me to provide information on two topics, then changed the topics. You "discovered" something great in Miskin's repetitive edits, and now I'm wrong when detailing the same thing you said I was right about. You added the word back in, but then ld me to believe that you were not able to assess the situation until somebody came up with another twist. I find that type of behavious unacceptable.

Regardless. The Britannica source discussed above, you will note, makres mention of Albanians and Romanians in the first lines dealing with the community in that text. Korean Minjok Leadership Academy says "Phanariots - a group of influential Greek and Hellenized Romanian, Albanian families resident in Constantinople's Phanar quarter." Djuvara speaks of non-Greek Phanariotes in what is the first of his paragraphs dealing with the generalities (one would have to be an idiot to accept that the introduction of a 400-page book and a two-paragraph article are supposed to have the same introduction, so this counts as Djuvara's first mention). Stevan K. Pavlowitch, in his History of the Balkans (I have the Romanian edition) writes that the Phanariotes had several ethnic origins in his first mention of the community, and choses to say that they were "Orthodox aristocracy of the Greek world inside the Ottoman Empire". Also see: "In order to understand the Enlightenment's impact on Ottoman Balkan society, we must consider the relationship between class position and ethnicity. In the pre-1820s Ottoman Balkans, most of the urban strata, mercantile groups, and religious and secular elites were either ethnic Greeks or acculturated into the Greek ethnie. Both the peasantry and the literate and urban Greek-Orthodox groups were "Greek" in the sense of being Orthodox. Millenarianism and Orthodox universalism were both common among the Ottoman Orthodox Christians. After 1750, the influence of the Western Enlightenment led to secularization, liberalism, and an undermining of the religious world view of the Eastern Church. With the French Revolution, this trend intensified. Greek-Orthodox intellectuals reconceptualized the Orthodox Rum millet. They argued for a new, secular "Hellenic" national identity. Still, their visions of a future state included all Balkan Orthodox Christians." (abstract of a work on Greek history). This accurately describes the relation between "being Greek" in 1711 and "being Greek" in 1750 - a point also made by Pawlovitch, who also calls the Phanariotes "Greek speakers" instead of "Greek". As I have said, adding "predominantly" is a NPOV way of stressing that exact point made about the community as a whole.

What is dealt with in the text, Niko, and this is goddamn common sense, is the fact that some princes who ruled over Moldavia and Wallachia were Romanian, and not just "not Greeks". This, as logic will tell you, does not implicate the Phanariote society as a whole (as it should, according to the quoted sources), and serves to induce Miskin'ss POV that "Phanariote rulers in Wallachia and Moldavia were something else than the topic of this article" (a subtraction work after which he, and he only, is left with "Greeks only"). Dahn 21:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well one thing I learn from editors like you Dahn is how thin the line between 'common sense' and 'original research' can be. By the way if you want to compare our sources, then let's treat it on a separate section. If we do this all the way, we do it right. I've got some aces up my sleeves as well. Miskin 21:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't caren what you do, Miskin. This is about what backs the mention of a NPOV wording, not about how much maculature you can come up with supporting your bias. Dahn 22:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well is there anything else you can suggest that would avoid debating against original research? I hope you realise that the one source you found takes by no means precedence over Britannica and Columbia. But I'll give you one point anyway. Miskin 22:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica: a small caste of Greek (and Hellenized Romanian and Albanian) families.Is this problematic for being part of the Phanariote definition as given in article other than "Phanariotes"? Well, let me note the obvious: the Columbia Encyclopaedia article you cite is actually about Phanar! Dahn 22:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Britannica reference is from within the text in elaboration about them. Not from the intro, which is cited here. •NikoSilver• 22:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and whom nobody considers "Greek" - see Djuvara on the topic of Wallachian nobility

Which is precisely why I insisted that you restrict your edits in their respective section i.e. the Phanariotes of the Danubian principalities - which is in fact your sole concern and representive class of the Phanariote community. What you say may be correct, but it has nothing to do with the head, and the arguments you're using are nothing but original research. You could be 110% correct, and your edits are long enough to write a book. However until you do write and publish a book, you'll be only wasting your time, and your ellaboration will be nothing but a mere POV. I have numerous times in the past treated all of your misconceptions on the topic and I'm not going to do it again. In fact I won't fall into the trap of starting a debate on something unverified: your personal conclusion on the situation. You have to prove that Britannica's and Columbia's practice is wrong. Do this by citing a sufficient number of sources that define Phanariotes as "predominantly Greek" (preferrably other encyclopedia or related material). Until you do this, I'll keep reverting you under WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:NOR. Miskin 21:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sophistry. Dahn 21:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pot calling the kettle black! •NikoSilver• 21:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I'll be taking one of Miskin's arguments out of context, I'll allow you to say that. Dahn 21:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will not do that unless you provide sources that identify thm so in their intro or lead or head. Lengthy speculations will be disregarded. •NikoSilver• 22:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Dahn 22:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't. This is not introducing Phanariotes, it's rather within the text in elaboration about them. The source from Britannica for Phanariotes is above. •NikoSilver• 22:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1.It is not just Britannica (see Pawlovitch, see the Korean article, see Djuvara). 2.The Columbia Encyclopedia article is itself not about Phanariotes. 3.Go ahead and drop all the mentions in the current lead that do not appear in Britannica, per recprocity.

All of this besides the fact that the mention is not redundant (even if Miskin's POV led him to deduce that the situation applies only in Romania), and also beside the fact that the mention is common sense (I agree over it with a Greek user, but I'm "POV" because the "neutral" good cop-bad cop over here have something to object). Dahn 22:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP doesn't care about analysis. It cares about verifiable, independent, reliable sources. So go ahead and cite them. •NikoSilver• 22:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Dahn 22:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Britannica article I cited is called "Phanariote". Give it up Dahn, I even got Romanian sources up my sleeve. Miskin 22:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia, Miskin. Columbia. Tolle. lege. Dahn 22:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, read the text of Columbia. It says:

PHANAR [Phanar] or Fanar , Greek quarter of Constantinople (now Istanbul ). Under the Ottoman Empire, Phanar was the residence of the privileged Greek families, called Phanariots. They came into prominence in the late 17th cent. and held influential positions until the Greek war of independence began in 1821. The city is still the site of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople.

That is 2 sentences about Phanariotes (i.e. intro) where it explicitly says "privileged Greek families, called Phanariots." Regardless, Britannica's whole article about them doesn't even mention your unduely weighted theories. And you wanted to include that in the intro? •NikoSilver• 22:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent to "Of critical importance to the ultimate success of the national movement was the profound transformation that Greek society was to undergo during the course of the 18th century. Significant among these developments was the rise to power and influence of the Phanariotes, a small caste of Greek (and Hellenized Romanian and Albanian) families who took their collective name from the Phanar, or Lighthouse, quarter of Constantinople, the home of the ecumenical patriarchate." Dahn 22:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm offering you a head start. Laters. Miskin 23:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin, let me explain the obvious to you yet again. We both admit that there were Phanariotes other than Greek (as per your "I do not question Dahn's sources" comment). What you will be providing in "sources" will subsequently be various published works that do not mention Phanariotes in the lead, thus pointing towards the importance or lack of importance of the mention. Right? Ignoratio elenchi! Because, you see, all one has to prove is that the argument was made by at least a reliable source, and not that it was made by "many" (if it was). Learn once and for all to make the difference between fact and opinion on the fact. Dahn 23:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not equivalent at all, because you forgot to mention those other four pages before your quote. It's not in the intro. •NikoSilver• 23:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do those pages make mention of the Phanariotes? Do they? Dahn 23:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We both admit that there were minority cases of Hellenised individuals who became Phanariotes. They became Hellenised because they wanted to join a Greek society, Phanari. This is precisely what the article's head describes (in my version), the Greek character of Phanari, which went as back as the Byzantine Empire. Like I said before, I don't want to solve this dispute via original research Dahn, we'll never agree; citing sources seems like the best thing to do. You refuse to comply eventhough you know that I'm right, and that indeed the majority of sources describe them simply as a Greek society without reading between the lines. You've been acting that petty from the very beginning, probably due to your stubborness and imaginary copyrights on the article. It's really a minor issue, and the only reason I don't want to comply is because I know that I'm right about it and you're wrong. I'm not even denying what you're saying for crying out loud, I'm just asking to leave it in the body of the article and I insist that it's POV-pushing and 'undue weight' to put it in the lead. Despite the credibility of the sources, you're still trying to have it your way. And after having discussed with you so many times, and having witnessed the initial state of the article, I think I'm in position to know by know the intentions behind your edits.

By the way, have a look at Dahn's "neutral" edits during the pre-miskinian interventions, and try to think how biased the article would be if he could have it his way. [5] Miskin 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Where do my edits or comments indicate that the majority was not in fact Greek by today's criteria? (Furthermore, I have indicated that, despite some quoted sources, i am ready to believe that a Greek identity in a modern sense could have been accessible to people living before 1711; make note that, based on sources, I extend this relativism to any national identity, Romanian included). 2. I have indicated several professional sources which nuance (precisely the word to use) the issue of Greekdom as "Greek predominance" and the issue of Greek tradition in Phanar (and there are plenty more dismissoiing the direct and implicit connection you make between Greeks and Byzantines, but that's an even bigger issue). They do so in the main reference to the Phanariotes, and I have not "read between the lines" (I suppose you refer to my use of "seems to refer to" at some point - but I assure you that, if the issue was whether Pavlowitch used the term "Greeks", he did not). 3. As I have said before, my original interest in the article was to elliminate Romanian POV present in there. I believed that any insights I was missing could have been filled in by other users. Even so, I fail to see what in itself is objectionable about that version. Dahn 23:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I came to know too. Thanks for that diff link above. •NikoSilver• 23:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Predominantly" in intro

You know the drill.•NikoSilver• 22:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Must be included

Add sources here

Must not be included

Comments II

We go nowhere like that

Comment. I don't feel ready to back the one or the other position here. I just want to point out two things:

According to a Greek historian, Paparregopoulos, some hellenized Phanariotes families, like Ghikas' family, had lost their Greek identity in the 19th century. This fact seems to justify - to a certain extent maybe - the use of "predominantly", since it seems to indicate one thing: In the 19th century not 100% of the Phanariotes families had a Greek indentity. Maybe they were 99% but even this 1% could justify the use of "predominantly". I can live without this word (I can also live with the word!), but, if Dhan wants to add it, I cannot prevent him (at least, according to my logic).
If we accept that 99% and not 100% of the Phanariotes were Greeks, this does not affect at all the traits of the Greek War of Independence, as Miskin has said. Ok! Not 100% but maybe 99% of Phanariotes played a role in this war? What does it change? Nothing! A big fuss for nothing!
I'd like Dahn to further substantiate and back with additional sources his arguments. What about some Googlebooking?! Everybody could do that, in order to reinforce one's arguments.
In any case, I don't think that we can solve this dispute on ourselves. The problem is much deeper. There are two extreme positions and no intention for a compromise. In any case guys, I can say one thing for sure: We go nowhere as we are now! There is no way out! Just a stalemate and further disputes! Trivia victories of one or the other "side" will have no real effect!--Yannismarou 12:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me first of all stress that the points presented by me are, overall, not different from yours on this point. Secondly: I will no longer be contributing to the debate on this issue in the article, and will be accepting any sort of arbitration if it assesses the place held by the word "predominantly" in both factual information on the Phanariotes and in the text's format (i.e.: in relation with other mentions of the Greek-Phanariote connection made all around it in the same paragraph, as well as in relation to the mention judged to have been redundant). Dahn 13:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you decided to stop contributing to this debate, then there is no reason for me to continue it as well! Your decisions and the initiatives are yours from now on.--Yannismarou 13:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rad my full point: I have agreed to arbitration, and I would like to hear a neutral point of view. I have contributed my share to the debate already, and believe that I have not done so for nothing. These were my full terms. Dahn 14:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! But the problem is that the person I mentioned is too busy right now. If he wants to mediate, he'll contact me. I have already left a message in the talk page of User:Robth.--Yannismarou 14:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yanni, you don't need permission to call for third-parties, nor can anyone put conditions on the third-party's way of involvement. I've seen Robth around and I have a positive opinion about him too. Also, for your first bullet, there needs to be a source clarifying if along with the Hellenism, those assimilated, didn't drop the Phanariotism (sic) as well. About your second bullet, the word predominantly does not explicitly state 99% and is unidiomatic according to the sources found. About your third bullet, that's what I've been asking Dahn to provide since the dawn of time (that's how long this debate seems to me :-). Finally, with this 99% (WP:OR) logic, we should go and add "predominantly" in the articles for Greeks, Italians, Germans etc... (WP:POINT) •NikoSilver• 14:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point.--Yannismarou 14:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From now on, I stay out from the "predominantly" dispute and wait for a third party's opinion, in order to express my final position. I proposed Robth; I hope he'll respond. Khoikhoi also demonstrated an interest for this dispute. He could also take part in this discussion. Let's see! In any case, I'll missing for the next 3 days - I hope when I'm back that I'll not be in front of a new dispute!--Yannismarou 14:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something I need to point out is that my comment on the Greek revolution was a semi-sarcastic one, which aimed to show that if were to follow Dahn's logic, we'd need to change many things in western historiography (as Nikosilver also pointed out). My example didn't even have anything to do with the Phanariotes, it had to do with the numerous Hellenised Arvanites who participated in that war.

Secondly I need to stress another thing concerning this debate. My edit does not rely on a personal opinion which I try to support as correct, I have been only trying to keep the lead of a credible encyclopedia in order to avoid original research and POV-pushing. Whoever believes that I'm trying to pass a POV, means that he hasn't been following the dispute. Dahn on the contrary is trying to rephrase a credible source that in his opinion is not 100% correct. Judging by the sources he has brought up so far, he needs a lot of work in order to succeed. So far the majority of his arguments rely on his personal interpretation of "ethnic identity" in the Ottoman Empire, something which Western Historiography has definitely already treated - but Dahn refuses to accept. Furthermore judging by Dahn's edit-history and persistence in POV-pushing over the most insignificant edits, I can't see how someone can take him as an unbiased editor. Having said that, I don't know how a mediation would contribute in solving the dispute. Help Dahn gather more sources maybe? Who knows. For the time being this is strictly a wp:policy issue and no personal opinion or editor consensus have the right to overpass it. Miskin 16:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not who is more or less biased here. Vlachos says that even Thucydides was biased! Thus I don't go into this discussion. I regard by default all the editors here as non-biased. And I did not say that a mediator "would solve the dispute". I just said it would be nice to have the opinion of an uinvolved user. I think that the plurality and the variety of opinions is a nice thing. Don't you agree?--Yannismarou 17:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was Robth's answer to my kind request: "I've had a quick look over the page in question, and it does indeed appear to be a tricky case. I'll make sure to have a look this weekend, when I should have some time to spend on this (and to run to the library myself to see what I can find out about it)." This means that we may have a broader basis of sources for the whole issue and another voice here. Isn't it a nice thing? Hm??! My purpose is not to "help Dahn gather more sources"; my purpose is to get in any possible way more sources. And if Robth manages to gather third-party sources this would be a great thing. Wasn't that what me, Nico and also you, Miskin, wanted?!--Yannismarou 18:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I care about the truth. In a way though I feel bad about dragging more people into this. It's an insignificant edit, the only reason it has become such a big a deal is Dahn's stubborness, which doesn't deserve all this attention. I haven't given in all this time because I know that I'm right, and I don't want someone like Dahn to have his way with an article and bypass wp:policy due to his persistence and stubborness. How can someone confident about the neutrality of his claims be refusing to gather sources and insist on having a third opinion on this? He's going for an "All-in", expecting to win the round by a lucky draw. I wish you had noticed that before worrying about being called a nationalist. Miskin 19:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Paparrigopoulos (whom Dahn indirectly called a Greek POV-pusher) was not just a random Greek historian, he was _the_ reference in Greek history, and a native of Constantinople. Miskin 19:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if I'm called a nationalist or not. I also do not care about Dhan's strategy. This is his problem. But I care about what uninvolved people believe about this issue and I care about the historical accuracy of this article and the historical background of the present dispute. When our ancestors were saying "Εν οίδα ότι ουδέν οίδα", an argument of the type "I know that I'm right" does not convince me.--Yannismarou 19:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robth and anybody else as a third party in this is more than welcome. •NikoSilver• 21:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Figuring out the "predominantly" issue

Hi all. Sorry to have taken so long getting back on Yanni's request for dispute resolution here; I have been rather busy lately.

So, to get right down to things. My own research on this issue has been disappointingly fruitless thus far; English language historiography on this subject is somewhat lacking. I did come across one recent and in-depth Greek language text; my Greek is much too poor for me to make sense of it, but if any Greek speakers would like to try to locate a copy, the book is Gia tous Phanariotes : dokimes hermeneias & mikra analytika, by Demetres G. Apostolopoulos, ISBN 9607916301. I have yet to do a full academic journal and database search, but it seems unlikely that I will be able to contribute any major new sources to this issue. I am, however, willing to help mediate or arbitrate the case, assuming all participants in the debate agree to that.

The question at hand seems to break down in the following way:

Were there non-Greek Phanariotes?
- What does it mean to be a phanariote?
- What does it mean to be a Greek?
If there were non-Greek phanariotes, should this be indicated in the lead?
- Would it constitute undue weight to put this in our lead if no other encyclopedic-type source gives it similar prominence?

These are the issues that jump out at me as I read the discussion above; please point out any that I have overlooked.

To move forward on this, here is what I propose:

First and foremost, let us treat this as a research question and not as a dispute between individuals. I have found that accusations of behavioral impropriety, accurate or not, tend only to make it more difficult to resolve content questions. Let's deal only with the sources and the content here.
Next, form a consensus at the start on the applicable principles before applying them to this specific article. Hopefully in this way we can bring to light and resolve any wiki-policy or philosophy issues.
Finally, examine the evidence we have and determine how this specific case should be treated. Ideally, everyone can reach an agreement on this. If that proves impossible, the next best option would be for everyone to agree on some method of solving the dispute--be that everyone following the result of a vote, or the decision of a neutral adjudicator, or some other solution. The point is that if a firm consensus on the issue can't be reached, hopefully everyone can at least agree on a method of picking an answer.

Hopefully we can work all this out satisfactorily. --Robth^Talk 05:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robth and thanks. I agree with all your comments. If I could possibly add a bullet to your point (1) above:

If and when some Phanariotes dropped the 'Greek' self-id, did they drop the 'Phanariote' self-id too?

Again, thanks for intervening. •NikoSilver• 12:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your intervention, Robth. I would, however, like to caution against the use of definate terms as per Nikos' question: it may be possible to determine cases of people who have indeed "dropped" an identity or another, but it is truly impossible to determine if that pattern of "dropping" took the same form everywhere, even inside the same family (in other words, if it may be isolated for study). Thus, I believe the question will lead to a wild goose hunt.

I do agree with the other formulations. Dahn 12:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niko: Would it be possible to cover your poin by rephrasing the first point as "were there people who were simultaneously non-Greek and Phanariotes"? --Robth^Talk 14:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think yes. •NikoSilver• 15:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a wild goose hunt, rather like a if it looks like a duck metaphore. See, Phanar-iotes means in Greek "the ones from Phanari". Like those from Thessaloniki, who are called Thessalonik-iotes etc. I really doubt any "Thessalonikiotis" (singular) will maintain his self-id as such, should he be assimilated in New York or Melbourne. I mean, if one drops the ethnic self-id, is it rational to assume that he'll maintain the regional (or worse home-town, or even worse suburb)?? Anyway, no need to elaborate on this, it's just a consideration. BTW, what ending do you use in Romanian to signify origin? •NikoSilver• 14:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Fanarioţi" is a neologism in Romanian, a construct on its own - "-oţi" has some tradition as an indicator of origin, but it is rarely used (and in special contexts: the only other one I an think of is "Istambuleioţi"). We go with "din Fanar" to illustrate the actual provenence (if need be), but "Fanarioţi" is used to designate, in concentric meanings: a. the rulers appointed by the Porte; b. the community they dragged along; c. the entire community, over a period of time (ancestors to successors - no clear limits). Dahn 14:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see., thanks. Niko din Paxi :) 15:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the principles exposed by Robth. But before taking a position on the two main points Robth asked us to consider, I'd also like to listen to Miskin's opinion, who has not yet expressed himself and probably seems to have a profounder knowledge of the Phanariotes history than I do. I'd also like to conduct some personal research. Hopefully I may be able to do it tomorrow, when I plan to go to the National Library for some research on another article.--Yannismarou 21:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin, unfortunately, will be away from Wikipedia for a week, as he informed me on my talk page. He has encouraged us not to let this stop the process, but I feel that his input and involvement here will be important, so I don't want to do too much before he returns. Using the time for research would be highly productive; some early discussion about the issues of content policy involved and on the means of settlement should consensus not be reached would also probably be productive. --Robth^Talk 00:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again and thanks for waiting for me. My position on the questions stated above is the following:

Were there non-Greek Phanariotes?

By definition of older and modern historical sources, no.

What does it mean to be a phanariote?

According to scholarly description, "Greek families residing in Phanar". All sources describe a Greek social class of Constantinople.

What does it mean to be a Greek?

I think this question is out of our scope. Nationality at the time was fragile and had no fixed criteria, German nationalism was based on language, French nationalism was based on self-identification and Greek nationalism was based on religion (all of which was satisfied in the case of Phanariotes).

If there were non-Greek phanariotes, should this be indicated in the lead?

I've never come across a source which puts weight on the Hellenised Phanariote families (which were counted on fingers). The Hellenized families were exceptions, let alone that Hellenised by most historians means 'Greek'. The fact that some people changed their ethnicity in order to become Phanariotes, precisely means that the Phanariote community was not open to the non-Greek element. Dahn's persistence on this topic is a view which is based on purely personal ideas, and for the obvious reasons, has no place in wikipedia.

- Would it constitute undue weight to put this in our lead if no other encyclopedic-type source gives it similar prominence?

Per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, yes. No historian implies that Phanariotes were some sort of a multi-ethnic cult. This is pretty straight forward in scholarly sources really, the Phanariotes are defined as a Greek social class, and I don't see a reason to imply otherwise just because an editor wishes to do so. Dahn's own position on this is very abstract, he generally does admit that Phanariotes were a Greek community but he will also bluntly state "Phanariotes != Greek". His views on Greek history and Greek ethnic identity are IMO not so neutral in general, hence why we I have stopped trying to reason with him on the context of a personal discussion. Only the sources should speak from now on. Miskin 23:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the statement that the sources, and only the sources, should be the basis of the discussion here. Has anyone found anything in their research that is contrary to the above? --Robth^Talk 21:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I do not have the time to become involved here as much as I would want to. I have indicated sources where the outlook is not that (either because they do not mention an intrinsic Phanariote-Greek connection, either because they mention that pre-1821 Greek identity terms are much vaguer than post-1821 ones, either because they specifically indicate that Phanariotes were not all Greeks, either because they indicate the obvious cases of non-Greek Phanariotes). If Miskin has difficulty understanding my position, it is becuase I have always chosen the middle course: if to say "predominantly Greek" (my version) is equivalent to "some Greek, some not", then I have sincere doubts about the neutrality involved on the other side. Regardless, this is about significance and consequences of a formulation, and certainly not about its truth value - I could accept that a neutral ultimately considers the "predominantly Greek" formulation to be overkill, but I could never accept that this is achieved on the basis of "all national identity but the Greek one was ill-defined before the 1820s" - IMO, the text could slip down that slope if we do not favour for neutral, reserved, and accurate formulations. Having said that, I will not repeat my arguments any further:they are to be found resting in various sections of the archived pages (I was hoping arbitration did not mean we would have to start this from scratch). I see a lot of problems in Miskin's argumentation (but I was hoping arbitration implied that the person doing it was going to look into the history of this debate,and could see for himself why I find them problematic). For the decision itself, do as you will. Dahn 21:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked through the history of the debate, but given the amount of back and forth that has gone on I was hoping to start (somewhat) afresh with a summary of where everyone stands now. The first part of your post clarifies that in your case. The question of an inherent phanariote-Greek connection was one I had hoped to find something on myself, but was unable to. I have seen your citation of the Brittanica article above regarding the presence of Hellenized Romanians and Albanians among the phanariotes, and the discussions of ethnic identity. As for arbitration, however, that would be something that all parties would have to first agree to; since that is not presently the case, all I can offer is mediation, and the first step in that regard is to try to establish the questions to be answered. --Robth^Talk 23:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had meant to say "mediation", but got lost in the wikipedia nomenclature. Stike "arbitration" and replace with "mediation". Dahn 23:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. You have brought up the Encyclopedia Brittanica entry above; are there any other sources you think would be particularly valuable for this discussion? (I was unable to discern exactly which sources you were drawing on regarding ethnic identity above. --Robth^Talk 03:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's me who first spoke of Hellenisations and put it in the article within context in the first place. I can find tons of sources which mention that some Phanariotes families had underwent Hellenisation, this is not a secret nor something abnormal. Britannica mentions it but doesn't let it interfere with the definition and character of the community - nor it implies that Phanariote != Greek as Dahn really believes - in fact it implies and states the opposite. However I can't find any source whatsoever which defines the Phanariote community anything other than a Greek social class. As I said, the fact that some chose to became Greek in order to join a Greek community, doesn't mean that the community became less Greek. For instance you can't try to convince us that the national football team of England is "predominantly English" just because it has 3 British national of non-english origin. You are free to believe that this is the "middle way" and we're free to prevent you from putting it on wikipedia. If you have sources that clearly state something contrary to my edits, then please do add them "again". Stop wasting your time by providing your personal opinion, I'm not interested in it and I'm not even reading those edits anymore. So far you've come up with absolutely nothing to support your edits except some cheap maneuvers. The truth is that this is not even a Romanian POV, I have also found Romanian views on the topic and they're not at all close to what you're trying to sell us here. Your views are in fact strictly personal, and this is why you have failed to back them up all this time. The only reason we're wasting our time on such an insignificant subject is your inability to accept that you're wrong. Miskin 02:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this away from personal arguments; right or wrong, they will not be productive. Sources that both mention people Hellenizing to become phanariotes and specifically describe the phanariotes as a Greek community would be a strong argument for the statement that phanariotes were by nature Greek; could you name a source that does both? --Robth^Talk 03:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Robth. Let's focus on the arguments. Unfortunately I did not have the time to conduct my own research as I had promised, but I promise I'll do! For me some important questions to answer are these:

Was one way towards hellenization of other nationalities or it was a two directions procedure? What I mean: After a specific chronological point was there possible a reverse direction of un-hellenization of certain Phanariotes families?
If this procedure did exist, when and where did it took place? In Romania? During which century? And if indeed existed such an un-hellenization (loss of Greek identity from now on), when this loss of the Greek identity took place, were these families still regarded ar Phanariote family or were they integrated in the foreign society? Namely, when these families had lost their Greek identity were they still a part of the broader Phanariotes community (socially, culturally, what were their ties?), mainly established in Constantinople.
We speak about the "predominantly" without clarifying something basic: Which period do we take as basis for making our assessments about the level of hellenization of Phanariotes? The 17th century? The 18th century? The 19th century? All these centuries together?! Don't we need to establish a certain chronological period as basis for our assessments?

Thinking all these things, I once again believe that we have to do with a tricky and complex problem. And something else: Within the next days or weeks I think about adding a new section about the role of Phanariotes during the Greek War of Independence. This is something missing in the article. But I don't want new controversies! That is why I inform everybody here about my future plans and, after you see this new section, please, please, talk to me for any objections or different views. I think we can settle such things without initiating repetitive edit wars. Thanks!--Yannismarou 09:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou please keep in mind the WP:NOR policy when making such statements. There's nothing "complex and tricky" in scholarly sources and therefore I think it's unappropriate for us to be inventing such theories in a Talk page. The only complex thing are Dahn's personal explanations on this topic, which for the obvious reasons should not be taken into account. Due all the respect but it takes much more than ranting to prove the existence of an "alternative view". For what concerns you, there's not a single implication of de-hellenization of the Phanariote society. So please let's try to stick to the topic and avoid original research, this is not the way I make edits and I don't intend to change it. Robth there are numerous sources that describe Phanariotes as a Greek society and yet mention the existence of families who entered through hellenization (from Arvanite, Romanian or Italian origin), examples of such sources are Glenny, Hobsbawm, Britannica. I can provide direct citations and/or more sources at request. Miskin 15:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about original research?! Not me, at least! I think that we all try to avoid original research and we all avoid to edit like that. Nevertheless, the research of sources is not original research! And I do try to stick to the point. Because for me these are the main issues here. And if Dahn has some specific evidence to provide I'm willing to hear. And the same with you, Robth, Nico etc.--Yannismarou 16:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the revert wars started again. Great!--Yannismarou 20:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look for yourself: the change to "Greek Orthodox" after a text that indicates it refers to several ethnicities is highly problematic to say the least (the asumption is, in itself, based on a misleading view: English has traditionally referred to all Christian Orthodoxy as "Greek Orthodoxy") - the addition has the effect of implying that all Christian Orthodox people in the Ottoman Empire were Greek, which is a gross sample of POV-pushing. Also note that not all Christian Orthodox people included in the millet (ahem!) were Greek Orthodox under the definition of Greek Orthodox provided by wikipedia itself.

As I have said, the source cited earlier with the claim that Ghicas were "Arvanites" bases this on clear mistakes in chronology, and fails to note the ways in which the Ghicas referenced themselves (not to mention that, according to Miskin's own criteria he theorized earlier, it is "biased" on this issue). There is also a virtually universal consensus that they were Albanian in origin (if their "Aromanian origin" is an allegation, then their status as "Arvanites" is pure fantasy).

The other edit I have reverted (not Miskin's) was a superfluous mention of Cantemir's activities, which, besides being easily accessible through several links, constitute a detail from the Russo-Turkish war - if we were to provide those details that were not directly related to the Phanariotes for each and every one of the wars, this article would no longer be about anything. Dahn 21:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK! OK! I know only one thing for sure: if there weren't any revert wars here, this article (with some more additions, a few tweaks and a copy-editing) could soon go to FAC. And believe me: I can discern the articles with such a potential!--Yannismarou 20:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headline "Rise of Greek influence on the Ottoman Empire" is misleading

From what I read and understand Phanariotes were a Greek elite class mainly responsible for internal affairs of the Orthodox population within the Ottoman Empire (as Ottomans seperated subjects with religion not ethnicity). They were also used as clerks and translators. Their most significant role in Ottoman politics seem to be their assignment to Moldavia and Wallachia as Princes. They were obviously used as middlemen to give the Orthodox population an illusion of autonomy. There are many examples such as this with other empires as well.

Now user Miskin keeps promoting this myth that Phanariotes had any part in the Ottoman ruling class, that they had this great influence in their decision making which they definitely didn't. Ask any authority on the Ottoman Empire and they'll tell you nonMuslims had no position in the ruling class of the Empire. They were at best lackeys and middlemen. I don't believe in racism and ethnicism, I think of these as modern concepts to make divide people into even more groups, I accept Turks as multi-ethnic (Unlike most Greeks who sadly refuse their diversity), I am just saying unless you were a Muslim official there was no way you could have any kind of influence on the decision making of the Sublime Porte. I am changing the mentioned title to "Rise of the Greek elite in the Ottoman Empire".--Doktor Gonzo 20:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are these Byzantine nobles the article keeps mentioning?

Can you please give names and family trees of these nobles?

Dubious caption of illustration

The caption of the illustration in the article says "An image of the extravagance attributed to Phanariotes in Wallachia: Nicholas Mavrogenes riding through Bucharest in a deer−drawn carriage (late 1780s)".

The translation of the original German caption however is: "Flight of prince Mairogeni in Bucharest while kk (Royal-Imperial, i.e. Austrian) troops approach. XXX 9th 1789". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelothes (talk • contribs) 13:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Doktor Gonzo 12:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

spanish please

do you can translate this article to spanish wikipedia? thank u

Hiperion93 (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vacarescu family

Encyclopedia Britannica, Vacarescu Family, 2008, O.Ed.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9074604/Vacarescu-Family

Romanian boyars of Phanariote (Greek) origin, a gifted family that gave the first poets to Romanian literature.
Ienachita (1740–99), after traveling and studying in St. Petersburg and Vienna, wrote poems inspired by Russian folk songs. He wrote the first Romanian grammar book (Gramatica româneasca, 1787). His chief poems, Amarîta turturea (“Sad Turtledove”) and Testamentul, reveal a high artistic…

That is only partially true, and probably relies on the fact that the family was related through marriage with some of the Phanariotes (almost all boyar families were). Djuvara, in the book cited in the article, says that they were a boyar family hailing from the area of Văcăreşti (page 128) and lists the entire family among the core group of anti-Phanariote boyars (page 343).

Unless this Djuvara person explicitly states that they were not of Phanariote (Greek) origin then I am not sure what the above proves. More so since the two are not even mutualy exclusive. There was a large Phanariote Greek community in Bucarest.Even if he did it would then have to be shown that this person is a more reliable source than Britannica, and good luck with that. Xenovatis (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xenovatis, speaking in dismissive terms about a historian is not going to make him less of a historian. You seem to be talking past what I say: the source explicitly says that the Văcărescus were part of the anti-Phanariote lobby by the time Alecu was alive, and a dose of familiarity with the subject at hand will show you that this is the case of several members of the family, who were leaders of the so-called "national party". Some of them may have had partial Greek ancestry (and the number of boyars with Greek relatives, no matter what their political option was, is impressive, just as any aristocracy in the world will be cosmopolitan). Moreover, the Văcărescus were a local family and owners of a Wallachian domain whose name they had as their family name. This, in most contexts, excludes the possibility that they were Phanariotes. Show me another source that mentions this Greek origin for a fact, because no other seems to do so far, and even Britannica has been wrong at times. Dahn (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to add this: your recent additions, although they may contain a lot of valuable material, are exceptionally messy, and break with the Manual of Style in innumerable ways: you spelled the same recurring words in several ways, you added an exceptional number of overlinks, and you added links to disambiguation pages or to vague places that do not serve the reader in any way. Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines, because you are placing a burden on other editors to comb through and copyedit your addition (whereas the text you found was already copyedited). Dahn (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite precisely which instances you mean by misspelling. The overlinks being too many and not serving the reader, is, apart from the case of the disambig pages, your personal opinion. Xenovatis (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one example: the article currently uses "Wallachia" and "Walachia". As for overlinking: read the links that I gave you, and read the part where it says where and when you should link the same word in the text. Then look over, for instance, the "Rules and retinues" section, which is just several paragraphs long. Owing to your interventions in the text, it now has two links to Bucharest and Iaşi respectively, and Idunnohow many links to Moldavia and Wallachia. In fact, let me quote from the guideline: "The same link multiple times [should be avoided], because redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. It is not uncommon to repeat a link that had last appeared much earlier in the article, but there is hardly ever a reason to link the same term twice in the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; in general each row of a table should be able to stand on its own)."

For some reason which i cannot begin to comprehend, you also made links such as "Grigore IV Ghica" - you were basically removing a link from the article on a person (which we need, even as a redlink), and replaced it with a link to the family, already present several times to many in the text above it (which we do not need). As for what serves the reader: it would be a good idea to actually check were some of your links lead (for example, linking to West when talking about Western culture or Western Europe sends the reader to the most absurd of places, and, coincidentally, seems to assume that he or she is a total imbecile who is not familiar with the geographical directions). Now, can you please look over the WP:MOS and make this easier on all of us? Dahn (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A redlink doesn't give any information while the link to the Ghika family does. The rest are noted. Now do you have anything further to add on the actual point in dispute re the Vacarescu family?Xenovatis (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't expect them to be "noted", I expect them to be remedied. As for the Ghika family: removing a valid redlink to an article that can be created at any time and replacing it with a link to the family (which you already have in the text!), as well as cutting a single name into several bits, simply give the editors one more task to fill out in the future, and correct what need not be correct (see the "flag of Tokelau" example in the cited guideline). Such editing is effectively bringing the article down.

I do believe I have added enough on the topic of discussion. Whatever his ancestry (if Britannica got it right), Văcărescu was not himself a Phanariote, and, as noted, was a member of the anti-Phanariote lobby. In case you think my interest here is to undermine a fact, I should like you to reconsider: as far as I can tell, sources diverge on this conclusion, and Britannica is actually the only source making this statement (without going into detail). This article would need much more careful and detailed referencing than "I googled it". Dahn (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I expect them to be remedied". You will refrain from addressing me in this tone in the future. Please go to WP:CIVIL and read it carefully. Now will you kindly (1) provide a source that says he was not a Phanariote (2) explain why an obscure Nazi philosopher, journalist, diplomat etc and part-time historian is more credible than Britannica? Having read his WP article I seriously doubt his work should be used at all, moreso since it all seems to be in Romanian hence unverifiable. See WP:RS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Extremist_sources and WP:VERIFIABLE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiable#Non-English_sources. There are many English sources of not just equal but much better quality.Xenovatis (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xenovatis, calm down and be constructive: I would appreciate it if you start editing out the redundancies you added yourself, but what I actually said was that I expect those mistakes to be corrected, by someone, by anyone.

Aburd allegations of Nazism and "part-time specialization" hopefully only serve to poson the well. Djuvara is one of the leading and liberal-minded historians in today's Romania, and he is widely recognized as such abroad. The book I used to reference this article was actually translated into Romanian from the edition published by Publications Orientalistes de France, and the Romanian printing house publishing the translation is one of the most acclaimed mainstream ones in Romania. Djuvara has training in history, and, even if he hadn't, he reached an academic level where his expertise is recognized in several domains that are compatible with historical research.

As mentioned, Djuvara's book does mention that they were a local boyar family and (as is common knowledge) that they were in the "national party". The former criterion means that they were not Phanariotes by origin, the second clarifies that they did not consider themselves Phanariotes (or any other group of Greeks). For more on their affiliation and identity, see Keith Hitchins, The Romanians, 1774-1866, Oxford UP, 1996 (p.144): "[...] the Hetairia had seriously overestimated the sympathy for their cause among the Romanian upper classes. Although a number of prominent boiers—among them Grigore Ghica, the future prince of Wallachia, and members of the Filipescu, Văcărescu and Sturdza families—and church leaders in both principalities welcomed the insurrection as a means of ending Ottoman rule once and for all, they also intended to abolish the Phanariot regime and eliminate Greek competition for political and economic advantages." In fact, the 1911 Britannica not only fails to mention a Greek origin, but speaks of them as a local family, and, possibly relying on their own claims, indicates that their distant origin was Spanish (sic!).

Now, let me state my exact point: I would have no objection to stating that Văcărescu was of possible Phanariote ancestry (which is bound to be "partial ancestry"). But portraying a man who stood against Phanariote influence in Wallachia as one of the Phanariotes, just because you found it a Britannica snippet which says that his family had (theoretical) Phanariote strikes me as a major exaggeration and superficial research. Also allow me to stress that I do not consider "standing against Phanariote influence" to be a positive value (just as I do not consider it a negative value); my concern is about proper representation and a grasp of historical realities and that man's priorities, however wrong or right that man was. Dahn (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good then there is no point in belaboring this. I amended to clarify that the family is of Phanariote Greek origin. Of course Vacarescu himself was not Greek since he that wasn't his native language but Romanian. Also added another ref that indicates several boyar families were members of the Philiki Etairia, the Vacarescu's included. And Djuvara, according to his WP article, was a member of the Iron Guard who were more than a little bit Nazi. Also note the pic is in the Legacy section. Hopefully this will settle the matter.Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dahn, I have amended the text to indicate the family was of Phanariote origin rather than Phanariote themselves. Nonetheless if you still feel that the picture in the Legacey section is milsleading please feel free to remove it. I also wanted to thank you for your pointer on wikilinks. I have corrected this in the Phanariote's article. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xenovatis: someone who was a fascist in 1937-40 was not necessarily so in 1995, and this is definitely the case with Djuvara. Moreover, I invite you to review the distinctions between fascism and Nazism - the Iron Guard were quite arguably fascist, and had a close affinity with the Nazis, many of whom reciprocated that admiration, but when push came to shove, at the time of the Legionnaires' rebellion, the Nazis (specifically Hitler) did not object to the Guard being forcibly suppressed. Too, Nazism was inherently German in character and when German troops occupied Romania in 1940, they were known to look down on the local population as inferior, so the idea of a Romanian Nazi is a bit of a contradiction. The closest to that were the German Party and especially the German People's Party, but not coincidentally, those were comprised of ethnic Germans. Biruitorul (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enought. That was a good point.Thanks Biruitorul.Xenovatis (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again Vacarescu family

This family vas always considered as belonging to the old Romanian nobility. Why the Encyclopedia Britannica affirms that it was of Phanariote origine beats me. You give too much credit to this source of information, which in this case is not reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.177.243.61 (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

††

Casual reader here, more or less by mistake, and I just wondered what †† means after some of the names in the "Leading Phanariote families" list. I first interpreted it as a kind of double dagger, and looked for a footnote. Then I thought it must have some special meaning like "this family line has died out," so I looked for a note at the top of the list saying that. My final thought was a vague idea that maybe it means the family is super-orthodox-christian somehow. I remain uncertain. 81.131.43.152 (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I believe that your second interpretation is the right one, in this context the double cross can only mean that the family is extinct nowadays, but maybe one cross would be enough?Stenic74 (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes ur right the double cross is the genealogical sign that the family line has died out. There must be a double cross, because by putting one it implies that only ONE FAMILY MEMBER died. So this wouldn´t make much of a sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.73.195 (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Phanariote period

The Phanariotes were extremely hated in Romania, and still are, because they were seen as nothing more then (foreign) turkish puppets who ruled Romania (the Danubian Principalities). The Phanariote period was a dark one for Romania not a bright one as this article tries to tell us, we should have a section called "the Romanian view on phanariotes" - because after all they ruled Romania for more then 100 years... It's not possible to have only the greek perspective on them, which is extremely subjective.

Mihai Eminescu (the national poet of Romania), writes about them in Scrisoarea a 3-a (the 3rd Epistle) http://www.gabrielditu.com/eminescu/satire_3.asp : "Despise the laws as nonsense that they themselves create/ As sly as artful foxes will they the benches throng/ Frenetically applauding our country game and song/ Then meeting in the Senate each others praises speak/ This heavy-throated Bulgar, that long and hook-nosed Greek/ Each claims to be Romanian, whatever mask he wears/ These Bulgo-Greeks pretending that they are Trajan's heirs/ This poison froth, this dung-heap, this foul and filthy brood/ Have they indeed inherited our nation's master hood/ The scourings of everywhere, the abortive and the maimed/ All that man rejected and nature has disclaimed/ These crafty, greedy gluttons, these grasping Phanariots/ To us they all have flooded and pose as patriots/ Until at last these nothings, this foul and loath full scum/ These cripple-minded stammerers lords of our land become."

Another thing that bothers me is this paragraph: "As a total for the two principalities together, 31 princes from 11 different families have ruled during the Phanariote epoch. Many times they were exiled or even executed: of these 31 princes, seven suffered a violent death, and a few were executed at their own courts of Bucharest or Iaşi." - which was taken from here - http://www.mlahanas.de/Greece/History/Phanariotes.html . Unfortunately the person who copied and pasted that part "forgot" to add the ending of the paragraph : "The fight for the throne could become as harsh as to provoke murders carried out among members of the same family." So basically the phanariotes (of the same family) killed themselves for power, but the paragraph gives the impression that the romanians killed the "princes", who were inocent victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.152.220 (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phanar Greek Orthodox College Istanbul.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Phanar Greek Orthodox College Istanbul.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Phanar Greek Orthodox College Istanbul.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deportation of Christians

The following sentence is, to my knowledge, untrue: "Immediately after the Conquest of Constantinople, Mehmet II deported all the Christian population of the City, leaving only the Jewish inhabitants of Balat. [6]" I don't know how many Christians were deported, but I do believe a sizable portion were allowed to stay, and this is also written in the article on the Fall of Constantinople. I don't know how to change this sentence, though, as I have no idea how many Christians were deported. 210.194.84.251 (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the deportation of the whole original christian population is well known and very well sourced. Its reference, Ernest Mamboury, is one of the most important Byzantinists of last century. I think that his sources are Ottomans. I don't know what is written in the article about Constantinople. but I will check. Alex2006 (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added to the Constantinople article information about the deportation of the Greek population and the forced repopulation of the city after 1453. Alex2006 (talk) 06:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]