Talk:Phanariots/Archive 2

RENAME

I'm trying to make some room for new edits but it's hopeless. See the section "Starting point" for instance, starting point of what?? The Phanariotes? This article clearly describes the Phanariote epoch and not the Phanariotes, hence I'm still in favour of a move. Miskin 11:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Who says that you are to stick to that subtitle, and why is it another person's responsibility to adapt text for you? 2. You are not following wikipedia guidelines when renaming, Miskin - proff of it being that the names in Britannica followed a Englishified version - Nicholas Mavrocordato etc. (when, in fact, the person in ruler was not not known mainly and with priority be his Romanian version of the name). Dahn 12:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Mavrokordatos, Kantacuzenus, Ducas and Ypsilantis families are given in English sources under those names. Eventhough the Romanian name is not provided at all, I kept it in the head and in dab. I don't know why are you complaining about this, most of the names I moved were clearly POVs which violated wikipedia policy (e.g. Ypsilanti, Duca etc). I didn't change the name of the Romanian "Cantacuzino family" which claims an ancestry from medieval Greek roalties, I only changed the names of the non-Romanised Greeks. Miskin 12:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That is absuird, frankly. First of all, you'll notice that the name that was given in most sources reflects the English spelling, not the Romanian one (Nicholas Mavrocordato is the Britannica version of what in Romanian is "Nicolae Mavrocordat"; for the same reason the main entry for Alexandros Ypsilanti or Alexandru Ipsilanti (the older) is Alexander Ypsilantis). You did not even respect your own claims: Stephanos Cantacuzenus?!!! When his ancestor was Şerban Cantacuzino?! How is he "more Greek" than those who claimed a Greek lineage that you dismiss if he was alive after those people were dead and if his family was not Phanariote, but boyar?! Dahn 12:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, the contemporary name of Istanbul as the capital of the Ottoman Empire was 'Constantinople'. Istanbul was adapted by Kemal Ataturk, and using it earlier as if it was official it's an anachronism. So with your permission I'm adding it back. Miskin 12:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to me that wikipedia is using "Constantinople" only for pre-1453! Never mind its spread use under the Greek form: this is simply redundant! Dahn 12:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not wikipedia that does that, it's wikipedians. This is mainly the result of Turkish POV-pushing and reflects the fact that no matter what happens wikipedia is always a work of amateurs. You can verify this in any source you want. Miskin 12:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, carry the controversy there. My point is that you can't go wrong using Istanbul. Dahn 12:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"Constantinople was officially renamed İstanbul by the Republic of Turkey on March 28, 1930.", this is verified in both Istanbul and Ottoman Empire. Furthermore almost no source before 1930 refers to it as 'Istanbul', and modern historians follow this practice. Furthermore my edit did link Instanbul within parenthesis, so can you explain how could it "go wrong"? Miskin 12:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If this is the statu quo on wiki as it is, and if you yourself have added "Constantinople" as redundant (since you linked the second word), then you'll have nothing to object to in my version. Oh, by all means, go ahead and tell me I'm biased in favor of the Turks now... And how's about answering the concerns about the princes' names? Dahn 12:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So why would it bother you to move the article to Phanariote epoch or something similar? It's blatant that the current article is restricted to the Phanariotes of Romania. The equivalent article in other encyclopaedias is much more general. This is clearly a violation of WP:NAME. Miskin 12:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

How is that connected to the topic? I had asked you why you went and changed Princes' names who have a variant in neither Romanian nor Greek, but in English, and why you have included people who are by no means Phanariote in your renaming campaign? Dahn 12:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have already answered this. The "official" names of the Phanariot Greek families such as Ypsilantis, Mavrokordatos, Kantacuzenus, are written in English as such. All people who belonged to those familes and were not simply of Greek origin, keep the official English spelling. It's fair to include the Romanian version in the head and in a redirect, but to adapt the Romanian version as if it was official is a clear POV-pushing. That was the case with the articles I moved. They had even given the Romanian version of the name to Alexander Ypsilantis which is simply ridiculous. The Romanian families of Greek origin must keep the Romanised name, simply because they're Romanians and not Phanariotes. Miskin 13:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Who did I rename that wasn't a Greek? Miskin 13:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And sorry, but I couldn't find names such as "Nicholas Mavrocordato" in any source than wikipedia. They probably exist but they obviously don't reflect consensus. Hence your claims are unsupported. Miskin 13:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Either Nicholas Mavrocordatos or Nicholas Mavrocordato (and John, and Alexander, and Constantine) PER: Jewish Encyclopedia, Canadian Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies, Oxford University Gazette (lecture held by a Mr. Karidis), [1], Electronic Text Archive at Washington University, Globusz Publishing etc etc. See for yourself. Note that, again, I am not favoring the Romanian spelling. Dahn 13:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Britannica uses "Mavrokordatos", hence my choice. I don't care if you want to change to Mavrocordatos, there's no difference really, although I don't see a reason for it. Miskin 13:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't find a reference for Stefan Cantacuzinos either (in neither version of the name), I changed that one to the default phanariot name. If he was Romanized then I was wrong to do so. But if he was not, then the Romanian name is POV. Miskin 13:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, because you can't spell in Romanian (try: Stefan Cantacuzino"). Note that you have called the Cantacuzinos "allegedly Greek" or something of that nature. Consider that you did not rename his ancestors, since they only claimed to be Greek, but him, because... Because? For Chrissake, he wasnt't a Phanariote! Dahn 13:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find Stefan Cantacuzino either. I was asking if he was a Greek or a non-Greek of distant Greek origin. I told you I had my doubts on moving this one, so you don't have to get hysterical. If I was wrong about this one then I'll correct my edits. Miskin 13:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is what I say: all families should be given the name closest to Greek. All rulers should be given the Englishified version for the Christian name, since that seems to be common practice (and is on par with the names preferred for monarchs throughout wikipedia), and the Romanian version should be given mention as the third version for most, after Greek (and I agree with you that it was not official). If you have your doubts about moving, how's about not moving at all? Dahn 13:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I was right for most of my moves, I took my chances for that one. You still haven't enlightened me whether he was a Greek or just of Greek origin. Miskin 13:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for your opinion on the Nicholas Mavrocordato(s) vs. both Nicholaos and Nicolae. As to "Stephanos", consider what you yourself have said about the Cantacuzino family in Wallachia. If "Stephanos", just as Constantin Brâncoveanu and Şerban Cantacuzino ("Serbanos"?), was a member of that family, judge for yourself. Dahn 13:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose Boyar implies that he may have been not (although doesn't reassure it). I wouldn't know whether the elders members of the family were already Romanized. Let's keep the conversation in-line, it's hard to keep track of everything. 'Nicholas' and 'Nicholaos' as well as 'Mavrokardatos' and 'Mavrocordatos' are synonyms, you can choose either. I still prefer to vote for Britannica's spelling. Miskin 13:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, let's agree on "Nicholas" and "John" and "Constantine" (which are, to my knowledge, Britannica's and not only) for the Phanariotes. This could work for rulers of Wallachia and Moldavia in general - and it does for the likes of Stephen III of Moldavia - but cannot be applied to most rulers for various issues which are not related to this one. To answer another question: the line drawn between Greek and Romanian was not similar to the one drawn today. Bare with me: contemporary sources distinguished between "native boyars" and the "new arrivals" (the latter would sometimes be labelled as Greek, but could also be Albanian or even Armenian); this trend began way before the Phanariotes, and intermarriage here was no more an issue than it was everywhere else at the time (especially since both sides were Orthodox, which was the truly important identity at the time). The said families would all be educated almost completely in Greek, would likely speak it extensively or, in some cases, almost completely, but would also leave behind records of exquisite Romanian (such as the stolnic Constantin Cantacuzino did) and most rulers had an adequate knowledge of Romanian. Add to this a third language of importance, which many of those you would label as "ethnic Greek" also used, which was Slavonic. With the Phanariotes, a Greek cultural hegemony slowly imposed itself, without ever replacing or wanting to replace the others; it was most prestigious because it was associated with superior culture and the Empire dream, arguably. You need not go further than this article to notice that protests against Phanariote rules in the name of a local identity reunited the more Wallachian/Moldavian families with those arrived just 10 years before or so, - BECAUSE THE FOCUS WAS ON KEEPING FEUDAL PRIVILEGE, and not "being Romanian" vs. "being Greek". Now come the true complications: sometime after the Greek awakening and its avatars, an investment into more specific identities came to Wallchia/Moldavia as well. Ion Ghica, the grandson of Phanariote Albanian-Aromanian Greek speakers, was involved in every possible cause of Romanian nationalism; in his letters to a Moldavian poet, he remembered how "we Romanians" were only taught in Greek as kids, and about how "we Romanians only learned to read and write Romanian when we were teenagers". Add to this that a relative of his, Dora d'Istria, also looking for a more specific indentity as was the fashion, wrote some of the first modern works in Albanian. Perhaps now you'll begin to see what this is all about, Miskin. Dahn 14:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is my mission statement: I don't specifically care about the ethnicity of the rulers of the Danubian provinces. What I care about is the ethnic identity of the Greeks of Constantinople (Polites), which undisputably includes Phanariotes. Whether a minority of those Princes in the Danubian provinces were Hellenized Romanians or Albanians doesn't change anything regarding the wider, real Phanariot Greek society. The scholars regard them Greek and we must follow that example. The wider Phanariote society is invariably connected to the emergence of the Greek nationality and the struggle of independence. Similarly, Phanariotes and other Greeks who adopted a different nationality over the years, must be treated according to their new identity and not the one of their supposed ancestors. Miskin 14:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, you had started abusing the Romanian pages for non-Phanariotes. Similarly, Phanariotes and other Greeks who adopted a different nationality over the years, must be treated according to their new identity and not the one of their supposed ancestors - I can agree with that, and I have never implied that Greek culture was not the main trait of Phanariotes; however, I have pointed out that clear-cut lines do not exist, and that Phanariotes (referenced to Greek Diaspora, referenced as Greeks, etc., should still present the exceptions and the precise differences in context very clearly - for example, the fact that, using the same logic, many Phanariotes have chosen to be something else when they thought the context dictated a different choice; what goes for the Ghicas also goes for the Sturdzas, Moruzis and Caradjas after the Treaty of Adrianople, as many of them opted to be Romanian - WHICH, for the fifth time, I DO NOT USE TO IMPLY THAT THEIR ANCESTORS WERE "ROMANIAN"). On a related topic: switching the main name of the articles to the English version ("Nicholas" insted of "Nicolae" or "Nicolaos"; "John" instead of "Ioan" and "Iannis" etc.) is not only the common practice, it also seems to be the habit of both Greek and Romanian voices when they express themselves in English (see the links I have provided above). Dahn 14:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I was flexible enough to accept "Mavrocordatos" over Britannica's "Mavrokordatos". However I never agreed to "Mavrocordato", hence I moved the article to the compromised version. Miskin 18:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Note that Mavrocordato is not "the Romanian version", it was the version of the article as it appeared in the 1911 Britannica (the main source for the article). If you are so prone on renaming, Miskin, could you do everyone a favor and apply it consistently, everywhere it appears. Your carelessness is what I object to mostly. Dahn 19:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't make sense from what you say. Phanariotes were not a diaspora people, they were indigenous Greeks of Phanari. The Phanariotes of Romania were Diaspora, but again, they're not the main representatives of the Phanariot community. I never chose a Greek first name (Ioannis in stead of John or Konstantinos instead of Constantine) I chose the names as they appear in my sources. Miskin 19:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

See above. I can't be bothered to do cleanup work after your impulses. (note where it says "please check for any double re-directs"? That's a large part of what I mean)Dahn 19:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that. Miskin 20:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And yet I'm still picking up your leftovers. Allow me to assume that this is because you don't have the slightest idea about how Greeks in general and Phanariotes in particular fit into Romanian history. I'm willing to bet it has not been long ever since you first heard that there were Phanariotes in Moldavia and Wallachia as well. For Christ's sake, at least turn the names you change to a single form in the respective article. Dahn 15:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said I was an expert in what concerns Romanian history, unlike others who pretend to know everything. The presence of 'Greek Princes in the Danubian Provinces' however is common knowledge and you don't need to be an expert to spot Romanian POV-pushing. I searched for double redirects and changed the names where my eyes crossed it, I think that's enough contribution from my part. You are under the impression that you're doing me a favour, or that you satisfy my "impulses", and feel that it would be an errand to make some effort of your own. Well what really happens though is that thanks to me a great deal of POV has been removed, and so the quality of those articles has improved. This is the result of my "impulses", so you might as well realise it and correct what I missed without making complaints. Miskin 15:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Miskin, you cannot point to a single example of "Romanian POV". Those texts were largely from Britannica, and in many cases reflect both antiquated spelling (not Romanian) and antiquated discourse - with didacticisms that were thought to be ok in the 1910s. Plus: consider that this article about the Phanariotes (which may be focusing on Romania, but that is mainly because that is the info Romanians were contributing - for some Greek contributors to let it rot in this state, and then complain) aims to take on objective view of the subject, and does not fall prey to the Eminescu-like slurs which are the standard Romanian POV. It is indeed an errand to ask for me to cut out Gordian knots you keep creating, and I have asked you to at least take care of some double redirects and confusing edits. Aside from the examples I have mentioned, you have chosen to rename articles about just some of the Mavrocordatos (which leads me to question how much interested you really are in trully improving the quality of the pages, even according to your standards). Dahn 16:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

RENAME to "Phanariote Epoch of Romania" (or something similar)

As the title and the first sentence of the section "Starting Point" imply, this article focuses on the Phanariotes of the Danubian provinces: "The period is not to be understood as marking the introduction into the Principalities of the Greek element"
Editors here should realise that "Phariotes" is not synonymous to "Greek ruler of the Danubian provinces", for the latter is only a subset of the former. Therefore the article name "Phanariotes" and the section "starting point (of the Phanariote Epoch of Romania implied)" cannot co-exist on the same article. Please sort this out. This article clearly focuses on the rulers of the Danubian provinces, so it's much easier to rename it to something else rather try to generalise it. I can't believe that after all this time the article's condition hasn't improved. Miskin 12:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, you have had the chance to add something relevant to this text, and to expand its coverage. That would have been a reasonable thing to do, before you accuse anybody of localism - otherwise, your changes would have led to a one-liner article of the kind "Phanariotes are Greeks" and a "See also: Phanariote Epoch of Romania (or something)" which would have been 145 times it size. You chose to campaign against what you perceive as "Romanianism" (without noting that, in context, that would make no sense), instead of adding relevant information that would lead to a moment when your proposed changes would actually carry some weight. Frankly, nobody feels like creating redirects in a ton of articles just because you object to the title but cannot seem to be able to contribute to the content. Until you actually expand the side dealing with other parts of the Balkans for the current text to be significantly large, this article ought to stay just as it is. Dahn 12:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Even your objections as the are can simply be solved by changing the names of the headers. Dahn 12:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The people who compiled this article had a limited and POV interpretation of who Phanariotes were, that's just a fact you can easily verify by comparing this article to the one of Britannica and the focus they give. From what you've said to me it's obvious that you share that erroneous idea yourself. As honest as I can be I really don't see why you refuse to have the Phanariote period of Romania in a separate article. I don't understand why you consider that the correction of the Romanian POV in the article is something completely beyond your jurisdiction. You're constantly implying that Greeks are the ones responsible providing the non-romanian related activities of the Phanariotes, while Romanians should only be interested in the rulers of the Danubian provinces. I don't mind playing it your way, if and only if we were to move the Romanian-related history of the Phanariotes into a separate article. If you insist on keeping it here, then you're as much responsible as I am to improve the weigh of the article and write what the Phanariotes were really about. But from what you've said to me earlier, you probably don't know. And I really don't feel like improving an article which is at such a biased state, supervised by people who think they own it. At least if I got to start my own article on Phanariotes I wouldn't have to deal with Romanian ignorance anymore, which doesn't even agree on using Constantinople over Istanbul. Miskin 14:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"From what you've said to me it's obvious that you share that erroneous idea yourself"; "I really don't see why you refuse to have the Phanariote period of Romania in a separate article." - Again: MAKE IT an article when you gather enough information on their relevance elsewhere that would justify it. If it is possible, do it. Until then, the change will only be a headache for 1,000 different articles.

"while Romanians should only be interested in the rulers of the Danubian provinces." - Where on Earth did I imply that? In fact, the one other Greek (User:Greece666) who suggested something be done to the article has in fact suggested expanding it to cover other articles. When I had answered that I see a possibility for having two articles when info gets expanded to a considerable level (which is how such things should work to begin with), he said he did not think that will ever be neccessary. So, no "Romanian POV" here, my friend.

"And I really don't feel like improving an article which is at such a biased state, supervised by people who think they own it." - I can talk too, you know. It is harder to just get up and write new sections in the article.

"At least if I got to start my own article on Phanariotes I wouldn't have to deal with Romanian ignorance anymore, which doesn't even agree on using Constantinople over Istanbul." - What then would you deal with? That is: besides causing a stir and pointing fingers? As for the name of the city: it reflects the current state of articles, and I don't particularly care what you have against that and why. If that changes, so shall this - otherwise, this would turn into a diversion.

Let me make my point clear, Miskin: if you would have something to contribute to this article, the Phanariote history in Romania would become one of several sections. If, at that moment, that section creates confusion or becomes a topic on its own (through comparison with a larger, more intricate, and referenced portion of text), turn it into another article. Until then, your proposals are just cultural apertheit. Good day. Dahn 15:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to edit-war in order to stick to Britannica's definition and prevent Dahn's POV-pushing. Some minor Phanariote families were in fact hellenized Vlachs or Albanians but that didn't make the slightest difference to their contemporaries. Greek doesn't mean ancestor of the Dorians and the Ionians anymore. The term "Phanariot Greeks" is simply part of the english language, and whether you like it or not you're obliged to leave it there. This is a Greek-history article, deal with it. If you continue POV-pushing bullshit in the head I'm going to continue with the moving process. You're outsourced Dahn, don't start an edit-war you'll lose. Miskin 14:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Gluing to words in English does not English language make. 2. This is not a "history of Greece" article, my friend - this touches several areas of the Balkans in equal measure - most of all, it touches the goddamn Ottoman Empire; 3. write something relevant about what great things they did elsewhere than in Romania, Miskin, if they are that important to you (if you can't, then there's no sense lamenting about "sources"). Dahn 15:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If I had the chance to start my own article I would write all things that they've done and the reason they're important to Greek history, but this article is already supervised by people who are only interested in their side of the story. It is not a "History of Greece" article but it is a "History of the Greeks" one. We were agreed to this head until you thought that I was out of the picture for awhile and tried to revert the article to your own standards. It's not gonna happen. Miskin 15:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What "side of the story", Miskin? If you were to source your claims and not turn this into jingoist festival, you would just go ahead and expand this to cover Phanariote history in other areas. Again: if you can't, they they are prolly not that meaningful to other areas! Let me explain something to you about the head: I thought that readers need to know the fact that "Phanariotes" and "Phanariots" are versions of the same term (which is the info that you had replaced, making it hard to trace all your edits); I still believe that "Phanariot[e] Greeks" is the joining of two words, which may be popular with some sources, but is not necessarily "an English term"; I have never denied that the vast majority defined themselves as Greeks, but this article needs to make it clear in a brief sentence that some did not (or "no longer did after a while") and that the Greek identity was both fluid and much less significant than it is today (as countless of MY sources - Maria Todorova, Lucian Boia, Nicolae Iorga, etc. have pointed out); your definition of Greeks, as I have pointed out before, as was pointed out by others on your talk page, is strict POV - it may even be true, but it is irrelevant to this article. Dahn 15:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the fact that you're well aware of the article's poor condition, (ie being called 'Phanariotes' and speak strictly about the Phanariot rulers in Romania) and yet you choose to do nothing about it, tells me a lot about your 'side of the story'. You simply don't care on having an article about the Phanariotes, you only care about the role of those Phanariotes who went to the Danubian provinces. The proof is that you expect from a Greek to actually write an article about the role of Phanariotes. As before that you're option and you have every right to do so. What pisses me off is that you insist on keeping the "Phanariot epoch" as the main subject of 'Phanariotes'. Responsibility should go to the person who has compiled most of the article and I don't know who that is. And by the way your sources have nothing to do with the points that me and you are reverting, they concern the content of the 'starting point' section, which I have never questioned. So what you are reverting is pure POV-pushing. I think I have a better idea on the definition of 'Greeks' than you do. I don't expect much from a person who thinks that Phanariotes suddenly "chose" a Greek identity out of the blue. Miskin 09:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 09:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, Miskin. I can't speak Greek, I cannot find many sources dealing with details of the matter, and I frankly don't want to get myself jammed into this again. I originally came on this article to prevent the Romanian POV from surfacing willy-nilly (that is, the wholly negative view Romanians have of it).

If I cannot make obvious to you the point about Greek identity (as any national identity in the Balkans - including the Romanian one) being a relative concept until the 19th century, I have little to discuss with you. It seems that you come on this site to induce jingola, and I'd rather talk to people who relate a bit more to the actual facts than to national patrimony (be it Romanian or Greek or Swazi). You could do me the favour of noting that I have reverted all similar contributions from the other side. Do something constructive to this article or turn off your computer. In any case, leave me alone. Dahn 09:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We can co-operate here-Respect the contributions of others

Expressions like "You could do me the favour of noting that I have reverted all similar contributions from the other side. Do something constructive to this article or turn off your computer. In any case, leave me alone." are totally inacceptable. We are not owing articles here; therefore, these words are far away from Wikipedia's philosophy. We cannot ask anybody to leave. Articles are not our property. These are my initial remarks about this article:

• This article is about "Phanariotes" who were Greeks, but it insists mainly on their role in Romania. And what about their other roles? This article must be expanded or renamed as User:Myskin has suggested (I lean towards expansion). If there are disagreements, we can alway vote: Democratic proceedures will prevail.
• This article is about Greeks, but mentions no Greek sources. Only Romanian ones. I respect these sources, but the current status is totally inacceptable. I intend to enrich the article with my own Greek sources.
• Greek Wikipedians who want to contribute in this article should be respected and not be treated with contempt. Expressions of the kind "Do something constructive to this article or turn off your computer. In any case, leave me alone" are not so polite.

As far as I am concerned I intend to contribute to this article with the eagerness to cooperate with other editors. I donot believe in edit wars and I donot like them. I believe that we can solve our possible disagreements through consensus. I hope other means (mediations etc.) will not be necessary.--Yannismarou 18:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The assumption of guilt in your post is quite offending, frankly. Let me stress this again: I have not just welcomed, I have asked for Greek contributions to this article. I have had a long talk with User:Greece666 on this topic, and, as I have indicated two times already, it was Greece666 who let me know that he agrees changes proposed by Miskin have yet no factual fundament. In short, Miskin had started a long and arduous and counter-productive diatribe against me for not agreeing that this article needs to be cut into two sections, because it is "Romanian-centric" (while accusing me of stuff he could not evidence, such as having "a Romanian POV"); I have said, basically, "add to the text and we'll see if sectioning is necessary" (at least for the simple reason that reviewing all the would-be obsolete links to this article is a bitch, and he has indicated already that he does not care much for doing stuff like that himself, but rather leave it to others); furthermore, Miskin's "contributions" to this article so far consist of rephrasing one sentence. Greece666 himself has said that he does not think that sectioning would ever be necessary, while promising to contribute to this article. It is my understanding that taking me out of context with what I had ultimately told to Miskin, after exhausting rounds of repetition and sophistry, was unintentional; I will state it again - anyone, who does not have anything to contribute to a particular article, but feels it should be split into a two-sentence long "main article" and a "see also" as big as this page is, can and should turn off his or her computer instead of harassing other users. I resent the implication that I am anti-Greek, and I welcome all edits that do not hurt the integrity of this text for the sake of proving a point. I will agree to splitting when and if it shall prove useful. As long as that is taken in view, as long as accusations are not made willy-nilly, and as long as wikipedia guidelines are taken in view in the new additions, I have no objection, Yannismarou. Dahn 20:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not imply anything against you and, of cource, I did not imply you are anti-Greek. If I believed that, I would have told it straight to you. What annoyed me is your last comment against Miskin. You cannot ask people who want to contribute to leave. You have to find ways to co-exist and you definitely have to take seriously other people's suggestions, especially when they have a point. And Miskin is definitely right in one point: Phanariotes played a crucial role in the resurrection of modern Hellenism and in the Greek War of Independence. The current article does not discuss these issues and, therefore, it needs a bold expansion and, maybe, in some sections, rewriting in order to cover these issues. If I had time, I'd have started thorough rewriting as I did with other articles. Unfortunately, I donot have time, because I'm busy with other articles. But I definitely intend to make some "injections of improvement" in this article. I'm looking forward to your co-operation. And I kindly ask you to take into consideration the arguments of Miskin and what I've just written. If you understand the importance of this article for modern Hellenism, you might question yourself: These bizarre and stubborn Greeks do they really want to have all the time edit wars or do they have some point in what they say and on what they insist? Cheers!--Yannismarou 20:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I repeat myself: Miskin has made no suggestions for this article other than splitting it apart without providing content that would match this section (equivalent to his initiative to renmae a few Moldo-Wallachian hospodars based on what he thought their names would be in Greek). In fact, my comment was provoked by the fact that, instead of adding to this article stuff on, say, "the importance of this article for modern Hellenism", he simply proposed a move that disreagrded several points made by wikipedia policies (in the matter of brevity and relevancy). I was tired of doing clean up work after him. Note again that I had in fact suggested to Greece666 to split this article in case text on the Greek-related section, which I always believed and stated should be expanded, makes this article too large; I will also repeat for the 4th time that Greece666 has told me that that this may never be necessary. Given this, all your other comments are besides the point - you have chosen to assume stuff about about my views instead of seeing what they actually are. That said, I am looking forward to your edits, and will give my full co-operation. Dahn 20:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem, dear Dahn, lies on the fact that someone started an article on Phanariotes and had in mind only one a specific historical chapter of the group, not its general history. If I were that certain someone and found a stub article on Phanariotes, yet I had the material to write a detailed history of the Phanariote rule in the Danubian provinces, I would make my contributions in a separate article until the article 'Phanariotes' was expanded enough before I considered a merge. If I didn't, the result would just be a bad article. What's happening here is similar to what happened to Cretan Muslims, a topic which concerned a group of ethnic Greek-Muslim people, part of which ended up being Turkish. The person who started this article had in mind specifically those who became Turkish, and the article 'Cretan Muslims' had ended up speaking solely about Cretan Turks. It was dealt by splitting the article in two. Eventhough I managed to make you realise that the current Phanariotes article does not cover the attested history of the Phanariotes but only its Romanian-related chapter, you refused to consider a split. Instead, you implied that "Greek edits should be made by Greek editors" and that it's not your responsibility to do so, therefore it would be just for the article to remain as it is, knowing that its content doesn't cover its subject. Because after all, Phanariotes were not known for what they did in the Danubian provinces, they're known for the contributions in the Greek war or idependence via their powerful position in the Ottoman Empire (Danubian regimes included). At that point I refused to co-operate with an editor who would follow such a policy i.e. that Romanians should edit Romanian-ralated sections and Greeks respectively - and nobody should care whether the content of the article was representative of its title. I asked from you to split the article and let me re-write it the "Greek-related section" (as you would put it) from scratch, but you didn't want to, instead you accused me for not making large edits - therefore I didn't have the right to edit at all. You never realised that the reason I didn't want to make edits in this article was your attitude, and specifically your imaginary copyrights over the current article. Miskin 22:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Miskin, that is just an atrocious excuse. First of all, this article was far from a stub, and the Britannica article it was based on made a minor mention of their presence anywhere but in Romania. I am not saying that would somehow be justified, I am just telling it like it is. There was nothing preventing you from adding text. Nothing. If you can't adapt it to the context of the present text, that's your problem - however, even then, I would contribute in copyediting. Generally, I would wager that 1 of 2 sources mentioning the Phanariotes would make ample reference to their presence in present-day Romania; the underlining implication that it is but a small episode of Phanariote history overall is ridiculous. If you consider that it is one of the many episodes (to which I agree), then go and contribute something that is not territorial marking. I don't want to count my eggs before they are hatched, and I added what I could contribute (especially since what was at stake was to get rid of blatant bias encouraged by some Romanians in the article as it was when I found it). For the thirteenth and last time: I will even consider splitting the article when I have something to split. Now, I will not carry this debate any further, and I am looking for some relevant contributions from users who have not yet accused me of Romanian POV without feeling like they should prove it. And do have the curtsy of informing yourself of the fact that Wallachia and Moldavia were not provinces. About your views on my supposed attitudes: I do not care, and I don't believe I should. Dahn 23:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Note to those users who have the naivite to believe that Miskin came to the proposal of splitting the article after meeting with my "attitude" (supposedly, my hostile attitude): check the archived talk. It was HIS FIRST PROPOSAL, HIS VERY FIRST POST. Dahn 23:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So, you say that the Britannica article focuses on the Phanariote rule in Romania. You see that's interesting, because I happen to have the article right here. Let's see in what parts (or part) it mentions that part:

They [Phanariotes] 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.

Maybe now you can get a hint as to what inspired me on the Phanariote period in Romanian history article idea, it was Britannica's single-sentence reference on the topic. Of course I suggested splitting the article from the very beginning, since from the very beginning the article claimed that the starting point of Phanariote political activity occurred with their involvement in the Danubian principalities. The reason I didn't contribute any further (because I did significantly rewrite the head) was the negative and hostile attitude that I described above, which you conveniently chose to "not care about". That of course, along with your POV-loving willingness to "contribute in copyedits" - openly speaking: keep your imaginary copyrights over the article. Judging by reason and experience, editing alone this article under your supervision, would mean certain edit-warring - something which I chose to avoid. You can (and probably will) choose to label this as an excuse, but as there are now more people to care about the article, you are about to witness the truth. By the way, ironic as it is, the more you keep accusing me for not having made "generalisation contributions" to the article, the more you demostrate my point regarding your "Greek-related information should be added by Greek editors" close-minded policy, which simply ignores wikipedia's NPOV policy and editor common sense. You just prefer to see a badly-treated article rather than make contributions that do not concern your personal interest - even if that means ignoring the very scope of the article. Another thing of course that you conveniently chose to not care about. Miskin 00:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Ahem. 1911 Britannica, that was, Miskin. 2. Something gets lost on the line when you cannot help but accuse me of POV edits on a text you could've written (?!!). And again, Miskin, stop slandering me with a POV-tag when you do not do me the favour of seeing that I have cleaned out the Romanian POV from the article (but I guess you know so little about Phanariote history in the lands you call "Danubian provinces" that you cannot see what is POV and what is not). 3. Nobody can coherce me into writing anything, and least of all into writing something I am not especially familiar with. Nobody can use my failure to comply with the order as indicative of "POV" or "hostility". Furthermore, nobody can accuse me of POV for thoroughly writing a section I do know a lot about - that is pure sophistry. I have never said that Greek editors should edit Greek sections, I have said that, if anyone can add something relevant to complete the article, let them do so (for chrissake, I have contributed, and, for chrissake, I don't have expertise on much more than that on this topic). It is inflammatory to accuse someone of segregating the article when your first proposal was to up and split it. All that speculation about my true intentions belongs in your private diary. 4. The starting point issue which you dug up, you may note, has no relevancy at the moment. I had originally added the header because the goddamn article in front of my eyes dealt with the Danubian Principalities, and I, unlike you, cannot predict into the future to see if this was to potentially upset someone. Now, if you may see this and other changes, please spice up your routine accordingly. 5. I have shown ad nauseam my willingness to include the contributions of Greek users. My requests in this respect have always been purely stylistical (of the kind you ignore hen rushing in to raise yet another monument to your POV). I want the text not to have superfluous and/or self-contradictory parts; I want the spelling to be unitary; I want information on all topics, including the Greek and generic Balkan perspectives, to be ample and referenced; if the text is to be split, if more articles are to be created, are issues we deal with when we have a reason to do so (again, at least because a lot of the many, many links in other articles would need to be redirected). In the process, I do not wish to allow for subjectivity (of the "let's include Greeks living in the Phanar today" kind, of the "Serbanos Cantacuzenos" kind). That is all, Miskin. I have allowed enough speculation and character assassination. Reply all you want: this is my last response to allegations about my conduct etc. If you have something relevant to the article, I'll be listening. Otherwise, again, start writing a diary or a blog. Dahn 00:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather you do as I did and indicate the questions here.

You mean, by the 4rth revert and the 10th time I urged to follow my example. Miskin 21:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My conclusions-Starting an extensive rewriting

Giving another look in the article, I believe that it is totally imbalanced and, at this point, I agree with Miskin. The emphasis of this article is wrong. Its focus throughout all the sections is Phanariotes' role in Moldovlachia (nowadays Romania). Their role in the awakeness of the Greek nation, in its direction during the Othoman rule and in its uprising during the Greek World of Independence is examined occasionally, it is not analysed and it is mentioned as if it was a side-effect. But these things were not a side-effect; they were the main effect. Therefore, I conclude that a mere expansion with the addition of new sections is no solution. This article begs for a thorough rewriting, so that what is now a side-effect becomes the main effect. I know start an extensive rewriting of the first part of the article. I intend to respect Dahn's contributions, but I intend to clarify that Phanariotes were not just appointed rulers of Moldovlachia, but something much much more: They were the ruling class of an awaking nation. I'll comment on my changes after the first phase of my rewriting is over.--Yannismarou 12:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. You have no actual interest in what was debated, apparently; which is ok, because you are actually contributoing something I have called for. I see you are rewriting it, and there is nothing wrong with that on principle. From what I see up to now, your edits need some minor style changes. I have nothing t debate beyond that point, and I have never suggested that your points were wrong, nor, for God almighty's sake, that the version I contributed was final. Dahn 13:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Where.are.your.sources.Yannis?!Dahn 13:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, as you can see I used a template Inuse, meaning I'm doing a major rewrite. Despite that, both you and Miskin intervene and make your own edits. Can I have an hour or so in order to finish my rewriting? I ask it as a favor from both of you. If you are a bit patient you'll see what I have in mind and you'll also see my sources. But please! For now! Give me some time! I;m trying to do something here using concrete bibliographical sources. Respect the inuse template. Thank you in advance for your understanding.--Yannismarou 14:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I would not have intervened at all while the tag was there had another user not "improved" your edits by making some POV additions. Dahn 14:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

However, the use of Phanariote did not imply that the Prince who was appointed was necessarily Greek. Although rarely occurring, reigns of local Princes were not excluded on principle. This situation had even determined two 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.

This part needs to be re-written for the reason that it erroneously assumes that Phanariote == Greek ruler of the Danubian principalities, which is not the case. In fact the entire article does make the same wrong assumption, precisely what I've been pointing out from day one. Miskin 14:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

WHAT? All those rulers were PHANARIOTES, Miskin. Not all Phanariotes were princes, but all those princes where Phanariotes. That is to say that families such as the Callimachis, Miskin, became Phanariote families, and not just their ruling members! In this context, and in others, it is obvious that not all were Greeks. Please, understand, that I am not denying the immense majority of them were and wanted to be known as Greeks, but this is just your POV-pushing and absolutte lack of awareness in any topic dealing with Romania. Dahn 14:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that one is capable of refitting the mentions of Romanian identity adopted by Phanariotes in, obviously, Romania into the new context (according to however this text is to be divided), instead of adding propaganda questioning stuff that was poorly understood. Dahn 14:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Precisely, all those Princes were at least 'labeled' Phanariotes, but not all Phanariotes were Princes. That sentence didn't specify that it was referring specifically to the Princes, hence it was misleading. And this is not a coincidence, because the entire article was based on this false idea. The hellenized Callimachis family were not in reality Phanariotes, they were just labeled as such in order to occupy Phanariote tasks. Pointing out that rare occasions of the Princes were Hellenised Romanians is simply more precise. There was not a Romanian identity adopted by Phanariotes you must realise that. What happens is Romanian ancestors of Phanariote families, carying Greek names and a Romanian ethnic identity - a normal outcome. To abstractly claim that some 'Phanariotes became Romanian' is again misleading. To insist that such edit is stays is POV-pushing. Let us try to be precise. Miskin 15:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me stress this again,Miskin. All those examples are, using your nationalist terms, "Romanianized" Greeks, not "hellenised" Romanians. Do try to get some information before you assume. Dahn 17:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And to be even more precise here: What is wrong with the edit I commented out, is that it treats as Phanariotes the Romanised ancestors of Greek princes. By the time those people were Romanised, the notion of Phanariote princes has ceased to exist. Therefore to call the ancestors of Phanariotes, 'Phanariotes', is wrong. It is really as simple as that. If the ancestors of Phanariote families continued to be called in Romania 'Phanariotes' (which is probably the case), is a story that doesn't concern the english wikipedia. Can you please provide a counter-argument on the point and not abstract talking? Secondly, the Hellenised Phanariotes you're referring to, were restricted to the Phanariotes of the Danubian principalites. If this was an article called Phanariote rule in Romania then your edits would be 100% correct. But as this is an article generally on Phanariotes, your edits are misleading. Please make an effort to realise what I'm saying - 'Phanariotes' by default in this article does not mean Greek Princes of the Danubian principalities. Miskin 15:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll stop making edits for now to give some room to Yannismarou to finish his own. I felt the need however to add now those introductory sections that I've had prepared for some time now. Miskin 14:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both of you. Just give me some time and when the template Inuse is removed, you will be able to evaluate my edits. Again thank you!--Yannismarou 14:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I just finished my first attempt to rewrite the article. There is a lot left to do. My goal was:

• To clarify how this class was formed.
• To describe how the rose to prominence.
• To describe their roles in the Ottoman empire.

There is a lot left to do. For instance:

• Their role before, during and after the Greek War of Independence.
• Their relation with the other two poerful Greek classes during Ottoman rule, the clergy and the merchants-bourgeoisie. This is a key issue.
• Their contribution to the redeemed Greeks and a comment on some of their "conservative" or "progressive" choices.

I tried to utilize and citate some of the edits Miskin made. I used them almost all of them escept for one paragraph I have some doubts about. I coud not citate it and I was not sure about some of its content. In any case these edits are not deleted. They are in section "Stabilization of their influence", but they just don't appear. I did that in order to give Miskin the opportunity to decide what he want to do with these edits. Miskin, if you insist to include them, my suggestion is to citate them and to rewrite them so that not to give the impression that you divide the nations of the Empire between "superior" and "inferior". I don't say you do that or you want to do that, but you might give a wrong impression, despite your good intentions.

I also hope that Dhan who has done such excellent contributions to this article will now understand that some kind of division in this article is inevitable. Otherwise, we cannot fully analyse the most important aspects of Phanariotes' activities, some of which I tried to cover today.

Excuse me both of you for any typos, but I'm writing for 2 hours and I feel very tired. I hope that you'll welcome my effort and you will make your own creative contributions. I'd also be happy if we can avoid from now on the edit wars. I must also point out that I'll not be able to follow any further of your discussion for today. I'm not direspectful of you, but I'm just too tired after two hours of writing. Thank you.--Yannismarou 15:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done. I have citations for all of my edits, I just didn't provide them because I was waiting for you to finish with yours. I'll might make some tweaks where I find it necessary. I'm not dividing the nations of the empire between superior and inferior, I'm just copy-editing my source. For any edit that sounds dubious, I can paste a direct citation. There's no OR in my edits whatsoever. Miskin 16:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I merged together my edits with Yannis' in an effort to create a flow between the sections. I didn't remove any newly-added information by Yannis, just added back mine, along with their source. I also renamed the section names to what it appears to me as a flow between the sections (i.e. from something general towards something specific). I hope it looks better now, I'll expand as soon as I can. Dahn I'm asking from you as kindly as I can, before you make your "copyedits", please paste the text into question in Talk. For any edit you consider dubious, ask from me to provide you with a direct citation. Rv-wars are tiring. Miskin 17:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather you express your objections to my edits, but here I go. Let me stress again the importance of not using weasel words: "unredeemed Greeks" is an unfortunate 1920s expression, and its udse means that we all agree that they were to be redeeemed, and that the independence War was a "redeeming" (not encyclopaedia material, but a pamphlet); implying that all Serbs did something in particular and all Bosnians had a material interst in converting to Islam is POV - it is also superfluous to this page; implying that all Phanariotes were Greeks is stupid - I can point out several who were not (the Albanian Ghicas, the Moldavian Callimachis, the Venetian Mourousis) - arguably, they were all "hellenized" (and, although I dislike such term, I do not question its validity), but saying "hellenized"=Greeks is misleading (for example, sources show that Phanariotes conspired against Nicholas Mavrogenes who, although Greek, was not from Constantinople); references to Phanariotes as governors of the Greek nation are to be toned down, as the Ottoman Empire was not the Greek nation (they were Greeks, they may have even acted as Greeks while on official duty, but they still did not govern in the name of Greeks). Other edits referred purely and simply to style (repetition, grammar, tone). I believe I have rephrased the text without hurting any point made, simply with the goal of not having this page turn into propaganda for an idea or another. Dahn 19:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Other edits I have made, which shouldat least be preserved for the sake of encyclopaedic information: I have indicated that a single community was a millet (we have an article on that, we should link it); I have refernced the exact countries mentioned (not "Russia", but the "Russian Empire", not "Hungary" but the "Kingdom of Hungary" etc.), and rephrased the absurd reference to Phanariotes playing a part in those countries (?!) with its actual meaning - playing a part in relations with those countries; I have clarified abstract and illegible content, such as the one referring to the sources of Phanariote fortune; I have removed the redundant and misleading link to Constantinople, and, as custom is on wikipedia, linked the name it has today (per info in the article: if you want to change that INFO, go THERE and change it - we have a duty to the reader not to send him where we want to, but where we have to). I have the request that these edits are at least weighed by all involved. To say that the newly-added text is below wikipedia standards is an understatement. Dahn 19:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

All those language-related edits are welcome, read below to find out which edits I'll be reverting. Miskin 23:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Did it have to come one step away from violating 3RR before you started discussing your edits as I repeatedly asked you to? Do not revert or "improve" or whatever you wanna call it before you reach a consensus in Talk. Respect other people's edits, as they respect yours. I'll go have dinner now, I'll reply to every single of your comments later. Be patient as I have been all those months. Miskin 19:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Back as promised. First of all I'm stating now that I provided sources for every single sentence I wrote. The rest of the article doesn't follow such policy, which according to your logic, I should regard it as unreferenced. Anyway you can make edits concerning the use of the english language, but do not waste your time rephrasing in a free manner as you did earlier, because I'll revert you altogether. My objection to your edits is simple, you're changing around content which is almost directly cited, and you replace it with your personal opinion. Before you remove the phrase "unredeemed Greeks", ask Yannismarou, because I think it was a direct citation. Furthermore:

implying that all Serbs did something in particular and all Bosnians had a material interst in converting to Islam is POV - it is also superfluous to this page; implying that all Phanariotes were Greeks is stupid - I can point out several who were not (the Albanian Ghicas, the Moldavian Callimachis, the Venetian Mourousis) - arguably, they were all "hellenized" (and, although I dislike such term, I do not question its validity), but saying "hellenized"=Greeks is misleading (for example, sources show that Phanariotes conspired against Nicholas Mavrogenes who, although Greek, was not from Constantinople)

The part on the Serbians, eventhough I couldn't care less about its validity, it's almost a direct citation and according to WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY I can't allow you to rephrase it. "Implying that all Phanariotes were Greek is stupid" is pure POV-pushing. By Britannica's and Hobsbawm's definition, Phanariotes were Greek or in rare occasions Hellenized (which also means Greek) individuals. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant, because again, per WP:CITE this is how scholars describe them, the majority actually doesn't even mention the Hellenization cases at all. And unfortunately for you, the term hellenized is used in this context by both Hobsbawm and Britannica. If you don't accept that Hellenized = Greek then maybe you should consider renaming the article 'Greek war of independence' to something else (maybe "mainly Greek war of independence"), because a significant part of the Greek national heroes were actually Hellenized Arvanites (just like Ghicas was). So as you see, this argument as well falls under POV. In the same way, the Romanized descendants of Phanariote families, are simply Romanian. However your comment about Mavrogennis does stand, but you can trust me that it was the last thing I had wanted to revert.

references to Phanariotes as governors of the Greek nation are to be toned down, as the Ottoman Empire was not the Greek nation (they were Greeks, they may have even acted as Greeks while on official duty, but they still did not govern in the name of Greeks).

Sorry but this is more POV from your part and contradicts the numerous sources I've read on the topic. If you have a credible source to back this up then fine, otherwise, don't even bother mentioning it again. As you tend to say to me when I edit the Romanian section, "let me know better on this subject".

Other edits referred purely and simply to style (repetition, grammar, tone). I believe I have rephrased the text without hurting any point made, simply with the goal of not having this page turn into propaganda for an idea or another.

It's not propaganda as long as it carries sources. If you think we're making this up and lying about the sources, all you have to do with WP:VERIFY them. Your edits referring to style and grammar are good (and I had no problem with the first vague) but you gradually started injecting POV, therefore I was forced to revert altogether. Miskin

PS: I enjoy my literary style as much as you enjoy yours, so unless there's a clear linguistic mistake, I'll revert back to my own version. I spent precious time on those edits, both on gathering sources and writing them down, and I'm not going to sit by and watch them being "rephrased" for no reason. How would you like me to start rewriting your edits? You wouldn't let me touch them, so why should I let you touch mine if there's no good reason? If you try to make such large-scale copyedits, be prepared to accept possible reverts. And please stop edit-warring. Just accept that you don't own this article, and that your opinion doesn't count above mine just because you feel so. Wikipedia has rules, and eventually they always apply. Miskin 23:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

1. No generic statement is verifiable, nor can something be an absolute truth. My edits concerning the Serbs are basic common sense: one can assume that many to most Serbs did tthis or that, but it is bewildering to see someone writing an ecyclopaedic text that would let it be understood that it was the case with all Sebs. FOr chrissake, that is the sort of thing one writes in a pamphlet! If it is the personal assessment of the historian, Miskin, uyou are supposed to, mark my words, cite that historian, not paraphrase. All that wp:cite stuff, I'm afraid, does not work for a paraphrase. It is sophistry to mix opinion and data, and you should know that by now.

2. The same for Greeks. I do not care about your opinons on Arvanites et al: I care about the fact that a Greek identity was a cultural aspiration more than an ethnicity; if most Phanariotes who continued to be involved in Greek and Anatolian history arguably defined themselves as Greeks, many to most of the others did not. If this article is to cover all sides, then the repetitive emphasis must be dropped: otherwise, the text will become self-contradictory. You push the POV into Romanian hoistory, where you draw a conclusion that most sources disagree with, and whose exact relevance you apparently cannot fathom.

3. Your assessment of the Phanariotes as, basically, "governors of the Greek nation inside the Ottoman Empire"is horribile dictu. What then: there was no Ottoman Empire?! I'm asking you to tone down a highly subjective perspective for common sense, and to please note that my edits were simply neutral. Dahn 00:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: to define the Racoviţăs as "hellenized" is simply ridiculous. The Callimachis relation to hellenization was a momentary thimng - as proven by Scarlat Callimachi (communist activist). Really, stop the territorial marking. Dahn 00:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It is also UNACCEPTABLE for someone to provide vague references in what is presumably a large book. Either indicate edition, and page or chapter (page and chapter, preferably), or erase all those references. Also, provide context and quotes where you are borrowing an idea, Miskin. Dahn 00:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The English language is flexible enough to imply that not all Serbs were involved in this, it doesn't need to be explicitely stated. You can make tweaks, as long as you don't massacre my edits. Like I said, my edits are sourced and well written, so there must be a good reason to accept a large copyedit. I don't think I'm mixing anything. And that WP:CITE stuff _does_ work for a paraphrased. My edits were intentionally close to the original source, so that I wouldn't have to tolerate dubious copyedits.

Well, I actually note you have kept my edits in that section. Dahn 00:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

1. I think you have made sufficiently clear up until now that something you characterize as a fact, might not be much of fact for the rest of the world. See that WP:CITE and WP:NOR crap again before continuing POV-pushing. Cite your sources to prove that there are alternative sides, and Undue weight will decide their value. By the way, if you're talking about those Romanian late 19th century Romanians with Greek names, then don't even try it.

All those people in Romania "with Greek names" were descendants of Phanariotes. I have the Djuvarra book to quote, out of many. In Romania, Phanariotes present defined themselves as Romanians. Simple as that. The Rosettis, the Sturdzas, the Ghicas, even a branch of the Mavrocordatos - through the Bibescus. I have proovided exact references on different pages, of which one is the Craioveşti one. Dahn 00:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

1. That wasn't written by my but it has a source, you must work it out with Yannismarou. Anyway I'm glad that we finally manage to communicate, after all this time.

Miskin 00:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

So what the hell was your point? Dahn 00:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

to define the Racoviţăs as "hellenized" is simply ridiculous. The Callimachis relation to hellenization was a momentary thimng

Regardless, assuming that you have a source on this (which I haven't seen), it still has nothing to do with the entity of Phanariotes. You're just trying to convince us that the most special of cases is representative of the massive Phanariote community. Scholars do not seem to read between the lines as much as you do, and since they tend to keep simpler opinions, so should we. Miskin 00:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I would thank you for not "reading my mind". I am merely trying to establish what is true about the cases discussed. Sources? Ever heard of Emil Racoviţă? Ever heard of Scarlat Callimachi (communist activist)? To imply hellenization as a given is careless POV-pushing. These are the cases discussed: they were already clearly referenced as the exception, before you introduced a non-sensical sentence that, again, was merely about territorial marking that you have no expertise in. Let me ask you this: does the source you cite name them and does it say they were hellenized? Because, otherwise, it is of no value as a refernce to them,next to them. Hope this is clear to you. Dahn 00:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It is also UNACCEPTABLE for someone to provide vague references in what is presumably a large book. Either indicate edition, and page or chapter (page and chapter, preferably), or erase all those references. Also, provide context and quotes where you are borrowing an idea, Miskin.

I didn't provide the pages in Hobsbawm's book because I have it available in the Greek version (meaning different page numbering, book size, etc). If you find the book look for the Greek Revolution section. Miskin 00:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Add the book oin refernces, as we did with all books. 2. Cite the title of the chapter in English in notes. Dahn 00:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. You can just use the {{el}} for your book and cite it in the Greek language.•NikoSilver• 00:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll just add the section's name in case somebody wants to review it. In any case Dahn doesn't understand that Constantinople was called in the Ottoman Empire 'Constantinople', nor that citing a wikipedia article as a source doesn't count. Miskin 00:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why on earth every such minor, trivial, and unimportant glitch has to be edit-warred over! This is disruptive behavior for the users who actually want to contribute in the article (edit conflicts etc over ...brackets)!! Just please tone down and do productive edits, or let those who do those productive edits proceed. If anybody else wants to unwikify Constantinople, throw a poll! •NikoSilver• 01:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is also what bothers me with this article. This could be a great article, but edit wars are caused for trivial reasons. I don't intend to find out who's more stubborn, but I must point out I'm already tired! No side has the eagerness to compromise and insists stubbornly in its own position.

'But the point here is not who will prevail, but how is this article going to get better?'In Wikipedia we should assume good faith. This is its philosophy.

Now, as far as Constantinople is concerned, let me tell you one thing: Dahn, when I started my rewriting I initially changed Constantinople to Instabul (adopting your view). But being curious about who's right I went to Constantinople article and I saw that the city's name changed to Instabul in 1930 by Kemal. This is citated in the article. Phanariotes treats events before 1930. So, why do you insist in something you're obviously wrong? Constantinople will be used and will be linked, because this is the correct term according to Wikipedia itself. In any case for this historical period Instabul is not more correct than Constantinople. Therefore - I repeat, again, according to Wikipedia - we have the right to use the term "Constantinople" instead of "Instabul" for this particular article and we'll do it.

In any case, I have to make two propositions in order to avoid (or at least limit) the endless revert wars for now on . These are two principles I believe they can ease the tensions:

1. From now on do not edit without citating. Any edit from now own should be accompagnied by a verifiable inline citation, preferably from a printed source.

2. For any disagreement you may have from now on, just throw a poll (as Nicos proposed)! Always accept the decision of the majority.

Based on the first principle, I'll tag any statement in the article, which is not citated and verified. Please, give a thought to my views and the principles I proposed. As far as I'm concerned, I'm sure that all the main editors of this article have good intentions and want to improve it. The problem is you can't build a status of trust. Let's hope this will change.--Yannismarou 08:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Because of the endless edit wars, I also marked the article as needing immediate attention within the scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Greece.--Yannismarou 08:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Reading again my edits and Miskin's additions I see that the new sections I added (and Miskin complemented) are almost perfectly citated (Miskin, just add the pages from Hosbawn-a printed source without page is not verifiable). On the other side, I see serious referencing problems in sections Dhan had initially written. I don't want right now to go through and start tagging Dhan's edits with dozens of . I'll give some time so that Dhan can go through his sources, check them and add the missing inline citations.--Yannismarou 08:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd rather you indicate the arguments you view as single-sided. If you do not want to add "dozens" of {{Fact}} tags, then by all means list your complaints here, as I was encouraged to do. Dahn 15:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have restored a large part of a paragraph that had its meaning twisted around. Let me explain something which has to with Romanian historiography, on which no user here seems to have as much expertise as I: the mention of Phanariotes in the Danubian Principalities choosing a Romanian identity is of obvious importance, and Romanian nationalists, just as Greek nationalists, deny its fundament. The matter stands as self-evident: three generations had passed between the Ghicas that came as sultan appointees to Bucgharest and Iasi and the Ghicas that were defined with the ad litteram notion of local rulers. Romanian historiography separates pre-1821 realities from post-1821 ones, and does so because the political situation had drastically changed. That is to say that the Ghicas after 1821 did rule as locals, but that their ancestry (no, Miskin, not "distant ancestry" - immediate ancestry) was Phanariote. This was the meaning of the paragraph. The mention of the choice made certainly does not make Phanariotes "Romanian" or any such notion, it does not harm or aim to harm points made about the more than usual association between Greekdom and Phanariotes, and simply refers to the attitudes those people in question had. I suppose the original "in both countries" was taken to mean "in Romanian and Greece", so I rephrased to its actual meaning: in Wallachia and Moldavia. Please don't toy around with Romanian history on the basis of assumptions. If anything is unclear, ask: i shall answer. Dahn 16:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay but I removed the "as non-Phanariotes" comment. It's a pleonasm since the Phanariote epoch was officially over, and the Greeks were the enemies of the Ottoman empire. Even if the mentioned families had wanted to remain Greek, they would have to exchange it in order to remain in power. Miskin 00:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Some guy removed it but I don't want to edit-war. Don't you think it's a pleonasm and anachronistic? It definitely needs a source. What do you think Dahn? Miskin 01:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me stress this again: I do not know what those people were or what system we should use to define them. However, I do know that Romanian society has had an immensely productive debate over their nature. In Scrisoarea a III-a', writen in (I think) the 1870s, if not later, Rosetti was defined as "a Greek" by his adversaries. So, the question of "Romanian ethnicity" is moot in what concerns perception of the Phanariotes - in 99% of instances, for Romanians, "Phanariotes=foreign".

You say: "they would have to exchange it in order to remain in power". That shows, Miskin, that you have only the vaguest notion of what countries in what is today Romania were like. Consider an article that has to explain the anti-Phanariote hysteria of people who, in 1821, were nevertheless the allies of the Eteria, helping the Eteria occupy their own country; consider that these people play an active part in the rebellion against the Ottoman overlord, and that, in the end, they are the only ones truly satisfied by the Greek War of Independence, as the Ottomans basically did them a favour by removing the Phanariote system. Let us concentrate on the meaning of the words "Phanariote system": it involved, as the article states, a direct relation with the Porte, not an ethnicity; those people identified with it were either Greeks or Romanians (you may note that, as I have referenced in the article, the real conflict was between boyars on one side and the more mobile elements in society, together with princes, on the other) - those people opposing it were either Greeks or Romanians. In the end, the guys concerned picked the first (and I am quoting a syntagm used ad nauseam in Romanian historiography) "non-Phanariote rulers". Who were they? Why... the Ghicas. The same Ghicas whose ancestors had lovingly gazed into the eyes of the Cantacuzinos while they were chopping of the heads of non-Phanariote boyars. The Ghicas whose grandfathers could not and would not speak any Romanian. Now, against who were these people rebelling in 1821? Why, against the "GREEK" (I am quoting Tudor Vladimirescu) Scarlat Callimachi, whom Miskin believes was "Romanian".

You see, Miskin, such realities need to be explaned in Romanian context. Using that term, beside the validity given to it by its general use, is a simple way to indicate to the reader why he or she may find the Phanariotes sitting on either side of the divide, just a couple of years apart. It does not implicate those that chose to define themselves as Greeks, and it certainly does not become less valid because of speculation on what would have been the reason for them to do this. 01:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I think this view is specific to Romania's socio-political condition and it doesn't sound balanced in a general context. The usage of 'Phanariotes' in Romanian society and politics has a much more specific meaning than that of the rest of the world. I'm well aware of that now, as it is the source of all disputes. Miskin 10:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that, even though I agree with the spirit of your conclusion, I must object to its arguments. First of all, I would not call the problem one of Romania vs. "the World": Nicolae Iorga and Gh. I. Brătianu have done as much have the world be aware of them and their arguments. I find a lot of the modern Greek point of view to be shaped by Tory history and by nationalism; however, that is my view, and I did not let it pass into the article. The actual difference in perspectives is this: we can all agree that at least some of the Phanariote community was more cosmopolitan than Greek (from what I can read in the article's references as added by you or Yannis, so does one Greek historian - the "class interests" thing); you say that the cosmopolitanism was reduced and marginal, I say that it was not (without ever implying, and you can go through all my posts, that Greek culture was not predominant and not highly relevant). The point, however, is that, no matter what, cosmopolitanism and multiple choices were at the center of Phanariote presence is what is now Romania, while nationalist outbursts against them as "Greeks" continued here until as late as 1907 (the more xenophobic of the two dominant parties was full of Phanariote descendants - which is to say, of grandchildren of actual Phanariotes; Alecsandri, one of the most vocal and annoying anti-Greeks, had a Greek gandfather). There was never any political pressure for either of these to happen (out of many examples: Gheorghe Brâncoveanu, who led the boyar regency in Bucharest in 1821, was a descendant of the Cantacuzinos; he encouraged both Tudor to rebel against the Phanariotes, and the Eteria to take over; he remianed unharmed after the Ottomans stormed in, and offered his palace for the occupying Russian army to use some years later; in the late 1820's, however, he adopted an orphaned princess of the Mavrocordatos family...). My original reason for contributing to this article was preventing the Romanian POV (Phanariotes as foreign, Phanariotes as mean) from taking hold, and I my edits on the historians' agreement and proper sources; I was concerened when, after traveling this road, this neccessary nuancing as appliable to at least Romanian history was to be dynamited by a different POV. Dahn 11:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't base my edits only on Greek sources and I try to avoid non-mainstream views. What you say may be true in the case of the Romanian perception of 'Phanariotes', which is not an objective point of view. This has nothing to do with sources, it has to do with the fact that Phanariote activity was not based in the Danubian principalities. Miskin 12:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is something rather childish in this reply, as its sole purpose is to say "I win", only attempted to answer to the very first sentences in my previous post, and did not even register my exact message in those sentences. The point I was making, is that, be cosmopolitanism of the Phanariotes overall as expanded or as contracted as it may, it is quite expanded in Romanian history, when taking in view not the "Romanian perspective", but the realities of Romanian history (contrary to both the Greek and Romanian perspective, and in compliance with sources). If I can get that through to you, I don't really care about much else. Dahn 12:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no "I win implication", I don't know how you're coming up with that. I don't even intend to edit the disputed part. Miskin 14:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing "disputed" about the part - no complaint was voiced that would prove awareness of content, or even understanding of context. In fact, no particular complaint has been voiced, and I am required to comply to vagueries and whims. Alleging that there is "a dispute", Miskin, ranks with two other deiberate misinformations you have posted: one about an edit of yours on the Ypsilantis pages, when you claimed an edit of yours did not link a certain word to a certain article; another on the Greek history project page, where you claimed that I was "Romanizing" names for Phanariote rulers (despite the fact that I have told you the articles were titled in that way in their draft version from Britannica, and despite that fact that any person should be able to understand once and for all that Nicolae Mavrocordat, and not "Nicholas Mavrocordato", is the Romanian form). Concerning such edits: I do not want your apologies, I want your pledge that you will no longer resort to such nonsense. Dahn 14:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What is disputed is the NPOVness of such claims. It is most likely that you're using terminology specific to Romanian POV on Phanariotes. I have sourced every single sentence I wrote, can you source only one? Miskin 15:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're objecting to. Really. I don't even know if you are following my arguments, or just objecting to them on principle. This article has sources. Beyond that, the articles I have provided links for have sources. So do, for instance, Tudor Vladimirescu, History of Bucharest, Craioveşti - info from them is present in the dialogue we had over here.

What are you disputing in the article and why? For instance, if you are disputing the fact that the Ghicas are considered, per the Romanian context (which takes precedence for obvious reasons in this case), the first non-Phanariote rulers, you are embarassing yourself. If you dispute that people in their generation considered them that, you are embarassing yourself. If you dispute that those people identified as Phanariotes in Romanian society had clear, direct, and recent Phanariote roots, you are embarassing yourself. If you dispute that several people who could have been considered Phanariotes under any possible criteria turned to considering themselves Romanian, you are embarassing yourself. Denying such facts is fanaticism; relying on ignorance of Romanian history ought to lead to a cautionary tale. Some of the things which you probably dispute are beyong referencing: they are obvious, universally accessible truths. Dahn 15:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm nothing but an embarrassment to the selfish. I'm not going to fall for this, your sole purpose is to have the last word and I don't have the time to play along. What I don't understand is what you wanted me to apologise for. For choosing to offer you a second chance to co-operate with me instead of reporting your breaking of 6RR maybe? Miskin 15:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the posts. Read them. Follow the letters, form the syllables. If you feel like it, say the words out loud in the privacy of your home. Then you will understand what I had asked you to look into, and you will understand that I have noted you have been deliberately misrepresenting facts on at least two occassions for the sake of making a point. If you will read, form syllables, and go over the meaning of words, perhaps you will be able to note that I hadn't even asked you to apologize: I had asked you to stop doing it. For the record: I do have the last word in any instance where my edits are questioned without being point out which and why. This is not the last word I demand from you: I already have it - I present a point about the history of Romania, you refuted it with no evidence (and, seemingly, without elementary familiarity with Romanian history). Unless Yannis actually points out what he himself questions and on the basis of what, the very same goes for him. Go ahead and post what you want in reply: unless you actually evidence some allegation you made about my "Romanian POV", I shan't be caring much. Dahn 20:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you mentioned me I'll just say a word: As far as I'm concerned I did not question something. I just asked you to citate your edits. This was a general suggestion. In this particular edit war and the ensuing debate I did not participate. By the way, I must also point out that I donot like implicit ironic comments against any user ("If you feel like it, say the words out loud in the privacy of your home"). Let's keep the level of the dialogue high, even if we disagree with other users' opinions.--Yannismarou 20:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I will add and check more information as time permits me. I have asked you, sice you have implied it apparently, what you find objectionable about my edits - because I know what issues I will look into, but you have called oon me to... what was it? "gather my sources"? I will gather my sources and look into them for what I have to contribute - but when a user who has no familiarity with and no exact sources on Romanian history questions my edits based on what is apparently the feel of it, I cannot feel obliged to this or the other. If there is nothing in particular that you object to, or if that supposed portion has no reason to be debated but someone's personal opinion, then kindly leave me to edit and reference in my own time. It is hard enough for me figuring what one would find "objectionable" (if anything),and,at the same time, I do not feel like wasting my edit time on referencing stuff like the fact that Ghicas ruled before and after 1821, when this can be found in lists of Wallachian rulers!

In other words, if this was a general suggestion, it was no suggestion. When the latter stage of this debate was sparked, I was sporadically contributing more to what has since become the Romanian history section; in the process, someone has intervened there and cited no sources while switching around the meaning of a paragraph (which that someone actually misunderstood).

When I am engaged in a dialogue with someone who does not even read my posts and misquotes/misrepresents me on this and other pages just to make a point, I can at least be "ironic" (as you say) to make my point. Meaning no disrespect: I find it of little relevance if you dislike it. Consider that I was faced with allegations and accusations that nobody felt should be noted or explained: I disliked these myself, but that is of just as little relevance. Dahn 20:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you cool down a bit. Your tone is a bit offensive. As far as your remarks are concerned, you definitely have the right to citate your edits whenever you want, but I also have the right to question any edits of yours as long as they are not citated and sourced. And I have the right to do it, even though I'm not so familiar with Romanian history. I have this right because according to Wikipedia policies edits should be referenced and citated; and these citations must be verifiable. Therefore, I definitely have the right to any edit of yours is not citated. And believe me, I'll do it, because I have the right to do it. In the meantime, you also have the right to take your time. Cheers! And goodnight!--Yannismarou 21:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me repeat my point: if you have clear objections to make to my edits, do add {{Fact}}, although, again, I'd rather you do as I did and indicate the questions here.

I was aiming to have more of this covered, and partly rephrased, but I needed to know if there is anything I should be looking for first (instead of doing it one step at a time - for the sole reason that I am currently one-step-at-a-timing other vast articles). To see what an article I create looks like, please see Regulamentul Organic - and note why I should perhaps not be patronized on the citations issue. You see, though: it takes a while to get to that for an article. Furthermore, my article has plenty citations as is - it may not have as much as it should have,but it has,proportionately, almost as much as the section you and Miskin added.

I will do more, but, when Miskin calles my edits "disputed" (see above), I deserve to know wjo disputes them and why; let me also note that Miskin apparently indicated that Romanian historiograohy as a whole is suspect (without indicating that Romanian historiography would be familiar to him). So: if you have objections, let's hear them (then I will know what to prioritize); if the implication is that my edits are disputed without evidencing what and why, I cannot be expected to answer the claim. Please also note that some of the section's sentences were already in the article, and that I may not take responsability for them (although I may be able to refernce them as well in the end). Goodnight. Dahn 21:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

One important mention: if you,Yannis, want to add citationneeded tags, you may want to spare me an effort - several linked words and names in the articles point to articles which are fully referenced when detailing stuff present in this article in short form (for example, events of Alexander Mourousis' rule). It has been my philosophy that either the link or the note tend to become redundant if they are both present; in any case, adding them twice was either unnecesary or not urgent. If references are needed urgently, perhaps you could avoid tplacing the tags for where the text of the articles confirms with this text (and is referenced), or even add the respective reference yourself. Dahn 22:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dahn has a slight anger management problem. He can't even realise that I've been questioning the usage of his terminology, not the factual accuracy of his edits. Miskin 21:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Miskin? You have just asked me to provide references for my "claims" (quote: "I have sourced every single sentence I wrote, can you source only one?"). How does one "reference terminology"? Dahn 21:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather you do as I did and indicate the questions here.

You mean, by the 4rth revert and the 10th time I urged to follow my example. Miskin 21:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Out of the edits I have made, just how much did you end up changing? Three words? Four? And when did you state your objections with my edits on the talk page? Dahn 21:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Three, four senctences was what I always didn't agree with. It was your hostile and gestapo attitude that forced me to revert the whole section each time. Miskin 21:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Er... is this meant to be a rational answer? Leave alone that I cannot believe you are somehow impared from selectively rephrasing - but where does the gestapo thing come from? Is that supposed to be a joke? Dahn 21:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)