we go nowhere like that comment i don't feel ready to back the one or the other position here for the time being i feel a bit closer to dhan's position but from a different point of view 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 th century this fact seems to justify the use of predominantly since in indicates one thing in the th century not of the phanariotes families had a greek indentity maybe they were but even this justifies 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 and not 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 but maybe 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 therefore i think about inviting an objective third party in this discussion i speak about