Talk:Phanariots/Archive 3

message: ====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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I see your point.--Yannismarou 14:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Robth and anybody else as a third party in this is more than welcome. •NikoSilver• 21:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments II

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I see your point.--Yannismarou 14:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Robth and anybody else as a third party in this is more than welcome. •NikoSilver• 21:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We go nowhere like that

message: 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)
thread_title:  Headline "Rise of Greek influence on the Ottoman Empire" is misleading 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed.--Doktor Gonzo 12:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious caption of illustration 

message: do you can translate this article to spanish wikipedia? thank u
Hiperion93 (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: spanish please

message: 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)
thread_title: Again Vacarescu family

message: 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)
thread_title:  †† 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Phanariote period 

message: It would be more helpful to link  hierarchs in the first section to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarch#Orthodox_Christianity  than to where it is currently linked  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarch).
I'd do it myself, but someone locked the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.239.72 (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More accurate link  

message: An image used in this article, , 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 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Phanar Greek Orthodox College Istanbul.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Deportation of Christians