User talk:Venera 7

Byzantine descent

You may feel it is relevant, but every other editor disagrees. The Byzantine heritage is not disputed, but including it in the article has obvious political overtones, as you very clearly point out: it is clearly intended as a legitimizing factor. However, the Greek royal family's claim on the Greek throne never rested on this descent, which is natural, for this descent is worthless as a factor for legitimacy. First, it has been diluted immensely through the ages, and more importantly, it is shared by almost all contemporary European royal families, and some would arguably have a "closer" descent than the Glucksburg-Oldenburg branch. So what sort of legitimacy does something they have in common with hundreds of other people convey? Also, the Greek royal family does not need further legitimizing factors. It was the country's royal family for over 100 years, period. No one disputes that. However, the chapter called "Greek monarchy" is closed, probably permanently, irrespective of what we like. The "Byzantine descent" is only ever stirred up by nostalgic supporters who still feel that if only Greece had a king, all problems would be solved, and he would one day ride into the Hagia Sophia... I also must warn you that you are currently engaged in an edit war, and have violated the WP:3RR rule. Please go to the talk page before reverting again. Regards, Constantine ✍ 00:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

By "every other editor" I meant every editor involved in this issue or with Greek royals' pages (and here I exclude short-lived single-purpose accounts)... Check the relevant discussions, you'll see. Now, your arguments... The whole "MT DNA" argument is spurious: the European tradition values the male line of descent for hereditary purposes, not the female one. Also, just check, for instance, what descendants just one of these ancestors, Caroline of Ansbach had... As for why the descent from Queen Victoria is more important, have you ever heard the phrase "Europe's grandmother"? Or Christian IX, because he was his great-grandfather, because the Greek royal family branched off from the Danish family, and because George II bore the title of a "Prince of Greece and Denmark"?

As I stated, no one disputes either the fact that they had a Byzantine descent or that they were (and still are) the Greek Royal Family. However, what has the Byzantine descent to do with anything of this? The pedigree lists the ancestors, male or female, of almost every current or past European royal house. You yourself wrote once in an edit summary on George I that "His documented descent from multiple Byzantine emperors is important in the context of his role as King of the Hellenes", but you miss the point: this Byzantine heritage is irrelevant, as it was never used by the royal family in any way as a factor for their being or not being rulers of modern Greece. When George I was elected, it was not because he was in direct descent from whatever Byzantine dynasty, but because he was Britain's choice. Constantine ✍ 09:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is one of relevance. The fact that George II was related to Queen Victoria is important because of the international context of his times, when every major European royal house was connected through her and where diplomatic relations were often still settled privately between royal cousins. It is relevant to the extent that George II was an Anglophile (and twice re-instated by British intervention) monarch, who enjoyed close relations to the British royal family. As for Christian IX, as I said, are the Greek princes styled "of Greece and Denmark or not? Is the Danish royal arms part of the Greek royal arms or not? I think that pretty much clarifies what the Glucksburgs themselves thought of the matter. For the Byzantine descent, it would be important and worthy of inclusion if it had played any role in the status of the Glucksburgs as the royal family of Greece. Since the very knowledge of MT DNA did not exist at the time, and since either way no claim on the Greek throne was ever made based on this "Byzantine descent" from whatever line, it is not relevant except as a trivia.

However, I still am against including it, because digging up such things for modern issues is not without major problems. Let me clarify this: you try to disprove the notion that the Greek royals were "Germans" because they had "Greek" MT DNA. There are a number of problems with this approach. a) the danger with such assumptions is that it all depends on choosing a very arbitrary starting point: whoever said that Euphrosyne Doukaina had some archetypal "Greek" MT DNA herself? Ultimately, does this not lead to the Mitochondrial Eve issue? The only thing MT DNA proves is the actual line of matrilineal descent, not that it was "Greek" (especially in a multiethnic empire like the Byzantine one, such assumptions are by definition spurious). b) "Greekness" is a cultural rather than a biological issue. A family may be 100% genetically "Greek" (whatever that means), but if they speak English and German at home, and in some cases (like George II) do not really feel comfortable among Greeks, then some qualifiers must be added to their "Greekness". That is even more the case for a family which intermarried with all kind of families, except for ethnic Greek ones, for centuries, and who even as the reigning Greek dynasty (with few exceptions) also have married with foreign royals. Whatever link they may have through MT DNA is in the end irrelevant before the intervening 700 years of cultural and biological alienation from this original "Greek" (again, a spurious assertion) element.

Ultimately, genetics is not a good guide to determining a person's or a people's identity. Even if you report the bare facts, they are always open to (mis)interpretation. That is why in many articles on countries/ethnic groups etc, such sections are either summarily removed or extensively pruned to avoid any misinterpretations. In this case, if the issue was merely adding a point of genealogical interest, there would have been no problem. However, there have been too many editors who have tried to use this Byzantine descent as a legitimizing factor (in the best WP:SOAPBOX tradition), and they have been reverted time and again by a series of other editors (Greeks and non-Greeks). Leaving this info out does not cast any doubt or weaken the fact that the Glucksburgs were the Greek royal family for over a century, that they are an integral part of modern Greek history, etc., period. Including it on the other hand opens a can of worms that is best left unopened. Constantine ✍ 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about "condescending". I know only that the same issue crops up regularly, with the same subtle implication/blunt statement of legitimization, and with the same result: deletion as irrelevant. And don't tell me that User:DrKiernan for instance is a Greek user with a political agenda... As I said, if it were only about adding something as a genealogical trivia, there would be no problem. There is however a history of mis-use of the "Byzantine descent" in these articles, and that is the problem: including this info for the Greek royals and them alone works as an argument for proving some sort of "Greekness" and hence implicitly providing "right of rule", especially since the descent is from an imperial dynasty and not just some lower noble family. You said it yourself: "His documented descent from multiple Byzantine emperors is important in the context of his role as King of the Hellenes". No it is not. It was not an issue back when George II was alive, and I really don't see how it is important now. If you who apparently bothered to check up a few things up gets this wrong, then I cannot help but assume that the average uninformed reader will too. To put it bluntly: if something is mentioned in an encyclopedic article, then most readers automatically assume that this has been deemed worthy of inclusion and is important to the article's subject. Well, this is not the case here.

I also cannot help but wonder why the sudden move from the "multiple Byzantine emperors/dynasties" to just the MT DNA from a single line as the deciding factor in retaining the "Byzantine descent". Probably an effort to increase the "uniqueness" factor in the Glucksburg DNA... I have a major problem with using DNA to claim anything in any historical or biographical article, unless it is solidly referenced and directly relevant. For the specific case, I outlined most of the reasons above, and your new arguments only strengthen my resolve in keeping it out: "Constantine's MT DNA was no different than that of his subjects". I am sorry but what? Even if there were some way to check and verify this extraordinary claim, what does it matter? It can only be relevant if this proves some "community of Greek blood"... Aside from the fact that, given Greece's history of invasion and migration, this assumption is impossible, again, even if true, so what? It was not a fact known at the time, and hence irrelevant. Furthermore, on the uniqueness of this claim, unless you are willing to go to the trouble to check out all the lines of matrilineal descent from the many lines of Byzantine aristocracy and produce it as evidence, I really cannot support its validity.

On the suggested compromise, this is not some horsetrading where both sides have to give something. These are two different cases, between an OR-ish assertion that has dubious implications and a set of facts that are directly relevant: for one, the Greek royal family always considered itself part of the Danish royal family, so foreign descent is important. BTW, "we are not talking about them, only the Greek monarchs" is nonsense. The monarchs were of course part of the family, and shared in the same descent as the other princes. The family as a whole publicly retained its Danish connections, from the Royal Arms to their titles and even the shape of their own house order, which was inspired by the Order of the Dannebrog. You can leave out Victoria if it bothers you that much, but if you check similar articles, it is usually mentioned. Like it or not, the European dynasties revolved around her at the time, and her mention is justified.

I have tired of this discussion on a very trivial issue. Either bring some reliable source that makes use of this fact and that would justify its inclusion, or, if you want to persist, call for an RfC on the talk page. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 00:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, you don't like me, I get it. We have gone from whether the "Byzantine descent" is relevant to the "MT DNA" issue (for which I do not challenge the validity, but the assumptions of uniqueness and relevance to the subject that you derive from it). For the Glucksburgs, does the Greek royal CoA include the Danish one? Why? Because they are a branch of the Danish dynasty, just as the Hannoverian kings of Britain included the Hannoverian CoA on the British royal arms of the time... Incidentally, as for who is misinformed, the British claim to the throne of France was dropped in 1801. The last monarch to claim the title was George III. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning George II of Greece, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 11:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Space Shuttle Programme

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Space Shuttle Programme. Requesting you to add your opinion. Regards Thanks. M.srihari (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited July 20, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paris Peace Conference. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)