Untitled[edit]

No merge: there is a need for a cover term for Greek speaking Muslims who are and are not Pontian. Opoudjis 01:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 2006[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Greek-speaking Muslims → Greek Muslims — The current title is a pleonasm, really. While it is accurate and highlights the fact that very few of these people (and probably none in Turkey), espouse a Greek national identity, they are more often referred to as Greek Muslims, and the Greek Muslims which form part of the Muslim minority in Greece are also referred to as Greek Muslims in Greece, e.g. in this quote from Eleftherotypia [1]: Greek Muslims, Pomaks and Muslims of Turkish origin and national consciousness live in Greece after all. I think that as we have an article on Macedonian Muslims (despite the fact that many of these people, and almost all of them in Albania, espouse an Albanian or other non-ethnic Macedonian national identity), I think that this move should be performed. This move does not risk confusion with the article on the Muslim minority in Greece (which the government accepts is multiethnic [2]) - I have proposed a move on the talk page of that article as well (see Talk:Greek Muslim minority) - and if any ambiguity occurs in this inherently ambiguous area, it can resolved with a disambiguation note. Finally, a Google test seems to show that this name is more common even for the Greek-speaking Muslims in Turkey [3] [4]. --Tēlex 19:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Could still do with splitting out into sections — if you insist as keeping it as one page :) - FrancisTyers · 10:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll see what I can do. --Tēlex 10:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

numbers[edit]

their are more than 7.000.000 greek muslims in turkey. [5]

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments

I don't know, honestly, and I'm not even certain that Macedonian Muslims was a brilliant idea, even if I appreciate the simplicity of the solution you propose. Also, giving a look to scholarship through Google Print, I noted that "Greek muslims" (or "Muslim Greeks") is simply always used for the Greek muslim minority, and never for "Greek-speaking Muslims". The latter instead seems to be used in scholarship [6].--Aldux 00:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Muslim Greeks" is also widely used for the Greek-speaking Muslims in Turkey [7], it's just that technically, Greek Muslims is the term used by Greeks (Έλληνες Μουσουλμάνοι) and Turks (Yunan Müslümanları). Also, if you check a few of those results, they are referring to the Greek-speaking Muslims, e.g. [8] and [9] (which distinguishes between Greek Muslims and non-Greek Muslims in Turkey). Also, technically, Greek-speaking Muslims may be inaccurate, because the so-called Greek-speaking Muslims in Greece and Turkey are bilingual in Greek and Turkish (as are the Turks in Greece), and the only distinction is what is used as a home language. Other groups such as Pomaks and Roma have their own languages in addition to Greek and Turkish, although strictly only Turkish is ever used in worship. As I said, it will be ambiguous, and that's why a disambiguation note will be necessary: Greek Muslims (in the sense of Greek-speaking Muslims) only form part of the Greek Muslim minority (who are also sometimes referred to as Greek Muslims). The term Greek speaking Muslims in never used in Greece or for the Greek-speaking Muslim in Greece, whereas Greek Muslims can be used for the Greek-speaking Muslim in Turkey. --Tēlex 12:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't use any wording like "Yunan Müslümanları" (Greek Muslims) in Turkish at all. We call the Turks in Greece as "Batı Trakya Türkleri" (Western Thrace Turks). I beg you please let's not go into another fight on these things. --Gokhan 16:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not talking about the Turks of Western Thrace. I'm talking about the Greek speaking Muslims of Trabzon. --Tēlex 16:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK I'm so sorry! I misunderstood. I should be more careful. --Gokhan 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Crypto-Christians[edit]

Aldux, this is an urban legend, myth, fairy tale etc. Hardly anyone takes it seriously! --Tēlex 16:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops, sorry, but you never know what a country can take seriously, even if it is absurd. After all, I come from a country where conspiration theories are all to popular.--Aldux 23:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yunan Müslümanları[edit]

In Turkish, there is no specific naming for Muslims of Greek descent. The words "Yunan", "Yunanlı" are related only to the country of Greece. Thus, it is odd to use the word "Yunan Müslümanları" for people who do not reside in Greece. The word "Yunan Müslümanları" or (more accurately) "Yunanistan Müslümanları" can be used merely for the Muslim community in Greece. Greeks of Anatolia, Istanbul, Cyprus, etc. are named "Rum" in Turkish, not "Yunanlı" as they do not live in Greece. The term "Yunan Müslümanları" seems to be an indelicate translation of the word "Greek Muslims" but it is definitely irrelevant. --Behemoth 05:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's true, but can there be a possibilty of a name like 'Rum Müslümanları'? the word 'Rum' is used for the christain orthodox greeks, right? really, isn't there any name to refer to people of greek decent, speaking greek, but who are religiously muslims in turkey? --Hectorian 15:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Rum Müslümanları" is a pure oxymoron. In fact, if you want to fashion a term in Turkish to indicate people who are of Muslim faith and ethnically Greek (and from Greece) it shall be "Yunanlı Müslümanlar", not "Yunan Müslümanları" and such term does not exist in Turkish. There is definitely no Turkish word to indicate a Greek Muslim in the given context. --Behemoth 17:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To Hectorian: if I understand Behemoth correctly, "Rum Müslümanları" translates into Greek as "Ελληνορθόδοξοι Χριστιανοί Μουσουλμάνοι" ;-) --Tēlex 17:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, it's quite funny. --Behemoth 17:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are named after localities, such as Giritli, Yanyalı, Oflu, Tonyalı, etc. and these terms may cover (in a broader sense) anyone from these places, whether they are Greek-speaking or not. --Behemoth 17:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no real term for them in Greek for them (except maybe the popular folk myth of the κρυπτοχριστιανοί του Πόντου - the crypto-Christians of Pontus). It's interesting that Giritli are called Turkish Cretans in Greek (Τουρκοκρητικοί) and the Yanyalı are called Turks from Ioannina (Τουρκογιαννιώτες) - it's a common perception that Islam and "Greekness" or any other ethnicity are incompatible. Even the Muslim Albanians are called Turkish Albanians (Τουρκαλβανοί). --Tēlex 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, any Greek-Orthodox Christian is "Rum" and any Muslim is "Τούρκος". --Behemoth 17:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rum means Roman. It is used to describe both for the Roman territories and Roman people.

When you call a contemporary person "Rum" you are probably referring to a Greek speaking Orthodox Christian person. But not necessarily.

Similarly when you call a person Türk you are probably referring to a Turkish speaking Muslim person. But not necessarily. There are Orthodox Christian Türks (Karamanlilar, Gagavuzlar), Judaist Türks (Kırımkaraylar) etc.

In short you should be elaborate to define an ethnic group. "Yunanistan Müslümanları" refers every muslim community in Yunanistan namely; Türk, Albanian, Slav (Macedonian, Bulgarian), Rum, Roma/Sinti and Greek people of many other ethnic backgrounds. (Yes, there are muslim Greek, muslim Rum people both in Greece and also in Türkiye And they don't have to be converts) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.88.102.245 (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cyprus[edit]

When I edited the section about Cypriots, it was only pertaining to Muslim Cypriots who had emigrated to Turkey. Now, as the article is rebuilt to be also related to ones in Cyprus, it needs new edits of the section. Before the "turkification" campaigns of Turkish Resistance Organisation and Denktaş governments, a considerable number of Turkish Cypriots had Greek as their mother tongue. In fact, about 60 % of the names of Turkish villages were in Greek. Is there any information about the current Greek-speaking Turkish Cypriot population in Cyprus? An example is Louroujina where there is also a fast linguistic assimilation going on. However, I am not sure whether even the people of Louroujina may qualify as "Greek Muslims" because they are considered to be of Linobambaki origins core of whom were composed by "Latins" and (to a smaller extent) Maronites rather than Greeks. Anyway, contributions on the subject will be much appreciated. --Behemoth 17:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Figure by Vyron Kotzamanis[edit]

The English language Greek source (Athens News Agency) claims that the population of "ethnic Greeks" is over 5,000. However, a more detailed coverage on the event by the Turkish daily Milliyet reports that the exact figure given by Kotzamanis is at 4,720 and he had also declared that the community is on the way to have a large portion of it composed of "people from Antakya" (i.e. Arabic-speaking and originally of the Antiochian Church). [10] I also recall that an education expert (a Greek woman from Istanbul who resides in Greece) asserted that about half of students attending Greek Orthodox schools in Istanbul are "from Antakya". I think the reference should be revised accordingly. --Behemoth 11:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About those arabic-speaking from the south [11]. --Hectorian 23:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The title should be Muslim populations in Greece[edit]

...and should mention and direct towards under separate articles for,

the actual communities,

historical communities,

historical communities further back, some retaining distinct features,

and if you wish to go further back,

Note that for Yanyalı and Moralı populations, I am not sure that there is adequately distinctive material to define them under their own articles.

and finally a separate heading for the tie with,

I won't comment on the present title of the article, except to say that it sounds hollow to me.

Cretanforever

I think u have misunderstood the article's title... it is not about the muslim population in Greece (for those, see Islam in Greece, but it's about Greek-speaking, Greek-identifying, or of Greek origins muslim populations elsewhere... --Hectorian 23:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said, I won't comment on the title, except to say that Greek-speaking, Greek-identifying, or of Greek origins, sounds hollow to me (as it is indirectly stated inside the article self). We all engage in exercises that please us:) Any objections on me starting (in middle-term) specific articles on Western Thrace and Dodecanese Muslims? Islam in Greece is a fairly ineadequate, general scope. Cretanforever

Keep in mind that we also have Minority groups in Greece; maybe you should work on the Turkish section there. That said, an article on the Turkish minority wouldn't be a bad idea, if it speaks only of the Turks, without pretending to create a fork of Islam in Greece. As an article on the Thracian muslims, we once had such an article, but it was thought better to merge it with Islam in Greece.--Aldux 00:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, u should comment on the articles title, before commenting in all it deals with. i mean, the things u posted about Cham Albanians and the recent muslim immigrants, are totally irrelevant with this article... Anyway, i wouldn't have any objections about u starting the articles u said. i'll wait and see the way u'll edit, and i will comment afterwards. Taking into consideration your history as an editor in graeco-turkish related articles (Chrysostomos of Smyrna, Cretan Turks), i don't think i will have "many" bad comments to say. --Hectorian 00:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Btw, if u are about to begin an article about the muslims from Ioannina (Yanyalı), have in mind that there were many who resided in Thessaly, and they had an important role in the society and history of the Thessalian plain. I am more than anything else interested in Thessaly, so, i will be greatly involved in such an article... --Hectorian 00:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, this was built by your former neighbours Hectorian. [12] It is in İzmir. The family that built it (the family Kardiçalı - which means, from Karditsa) are still prominent in the city's commerce. But I will have to see if there is anything that can be written on Yanyalı that would still have relevance. They have, for the most part, infused inside the mass and dissappeared as such (a little like the Moralı but through a different processus). So I will, at some time, start an article on the Turks of Western Thrace and Dodecanese Muslims (or even Dodecanese Turks if you prefer it that way:) Cretanforever

I did not know that the Yanyalı are still ovious in Turkey (even in a small extend, as u said):). If my 'preference' would make any difference, i would prefer Dodecanese Muslims, or Dodecanese Turks (with the note that all muslims in the Ottoman Empire where called 'Turks' when they acquired that name). --Hectorian 01:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will title it "Turks of the Dodecanese" with redirects from all possible variants employing the words Muslim or Rhodes or Kos (because in Turkish, to cite, Rodos Türkleri (Turks of Rhodes) would be the more common use), and I will stress that all are bilingual Greek-Turkish in all aspects. It is worth being written because there are some notable personalities issued from the community. Cretanforever

Do not forget to do what u did in Cretan Turks: Related ethnic groups: Greeks. --Hectorian 02:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yanyalılar[edit]

Moved from article. Aramgar (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Yanyalılar" were turkish people. Not muslim greeks. Their roots came to Ioannina from Anatolia when the city conquested by Sultan II. Murad in 1432.

Hello, do you have any informations about Muslims from Grevena/Kozani region?They used to have the name Βαλαήs/Vala-ís in greek. thanks

Hi, my grandmother is of Greek ethnicity living in Istanbul. I know for a fact she is a Muslim, but her mother tongue is Greek and her Turkish is broken and poor. So.. it is true. Turkish peoples hide their true origins if they are not ethnic Turks. eg. My whole family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.84.15 (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem?[edit]

The Pontic issue is currently the second most important problem in Turkey, after the Kurdish one, and there is an ongoing campaign to eradigate this dialect from the younger generations. Ok I see there is problem with insurgency? But second problem is some almost extinct linguistic group still speakin their language? is that true? if it is then what kind of country Turkey is? can anyone provide references? is problem maybe to harsh word? i guess turkey has bigger problems,like economic ones for example and not campaigning for eradication of some ancient dialect(this upset me alot). anyway references please... Luka Jačov (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC) I hava friend whose grandmother was a Greek speaking Moslem woman...straight from Iannina. She was forced to move to Anatolia and once there, eventually married a Yoruk. Their daughter in turn...married a Hercegovinian refugee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.171.5 (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russian emperess[edit]

In 1777–1778, when Catherine the Great of Russia conquered the peninsula from the Ottoman Empire, the local Orthodox population was forcibly deported and settled north of the Azov Sea. In order to avoid deportation, some Greeks chose to convert to Islam. - sorry this sentence doesnt make sense, why would emperess of orthodox country deport one of its own? Luka Jačov (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

citation 4[edit]

Can we replace it with "citation needed"? The page it cites gives its source as "internet", which could just as well be wikipedia. Thus, isn't this kind of the equivelant of starting a geocities account with my opinions and then editing wikipedia to match it and claiming its not NPOV because I have a site?

Yeah, c'mon guys, you can do better than that. Theoretically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.214.133 (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greek converts[edit]

A couple of important Greek Muslim converts:

John Tzelepes Komnenos, a nephew of the Byzantine emperor John II and claimed ancestor, in the female line, of the Ottoman sultans.

Misac Palaeologos Pasha, a member of the Byzantine Palaeologe dynasty and the Ottoman commander in the first siege of Rhodes.

Citation 3[edit]

The section on "reasons for converting to Islam" strikes this user as just a bit bizarre. It seems to quote excessively from one source and the disparity of the citations used make it look as though there was some sort of retaliatory exchange between Christians and Muslims on the subject. I don't want to touch it as I would be far from neutral myself, but it does seem as though someone wrote it with an Islamic agenda in mind and then a Christian retaliated by inserting one damning selective quote... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.100.154.134 (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously biased "Reasons for conversion to Islam"[edit]

I agree with the previous comment that this paragraph almost preaches Islam. It is based on a single reference and refers to the supposed "superiority" of the muslim faith that cannot explain at all the long resistance of christian populations to conversion in the Balkans and elsewhere. In addition, balkan Muslims, e.g. Albanians, are rather religiously indifferent, showing that the presented arguments are invalid. It would be interesting to find sources with numbers of converted Christians during the Ottoman Empire.87.147.72.140 (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with both IP editors. The tone and tenor of the section is way over the top, as are the block quotes. There is no need to use such block quotes, especially from a source that 100 years old. While some of the material can stay, I have removed the grossly POV parts. Athenean (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List about non converts[edit]

There are three lists in the article. I haven't checked the sources . But the last one about the converts seems like a convenient list in this article. But what about the first two ? Muslims of Greek descent (non-conversions) ? These two lists are about people whose mother tongues are Ottoman Turkish and were born in typical Ottoman Muslim house . The only thing which relates them to Greek descent was that some of their anchestors were of Greek origin. I don't think these racially oriented lists have anything to do with the text of the article. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greeks or Albanians?[edit]

It should be noted that many, if not most, of these names are of individuals who were of Arvanite Albanian descent, or mix Arvanite-Greek descent, and not purely Greek, such as those surnamed Pasha, all of whom were Albanian.

Before the twilight of the Ottoman Empire, many ethnic Albanians inhabited Greek Epirus and other parts of Greece, they spoke Greek, in addition to their peculiar dialect of Albanian, and identified as Albanian. We should also stress that it was exceptionally, exceptionally rare that Greeks would convert to Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.173.75 (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thessalian and Southern Greek Muslims[edit]

The sources do not say if these individuals were indeed ethnic Greeks or spoke Greek. The situation might have been similar like in Crete, but we would need more sources.  Andreas  (T) 21:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Requested move 24 February 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - Stability of the article at it's current title since July 2006 is the driving factor here. Despite a few cogent arguments on both sides, there's no overwhelming consensus to move to new title and the article can have only one title. My suggestion is to make the appropriate adjustments within the article to clarify any misconceptions. This is more a content issue than a title issue. Mike Cline (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Greek Muslims → Greek-speaking Muslims – The title of the article infers that people who are Greek speaking and Muslim are Greeks, when their unique communities now resident in Turkey have historically not identified with Greek identity. It represents an erroneous position, which when it comes to other similar communities with complex linguistic and other identities (like the Arvanites or Slavic speakers in Greece), they are not referred to as Albanians, or Macedonians/Bulgarians, because people within those communities may disagree with such names. For more see below:relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC) For more see below: Relisted. Resnjari (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC) Resnjari (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand that the former article's name is a pleonasm. Nonetheless the name Greek-speaking Muslims is "accurate" and importantly "highlights the fact that very few of these people (and probably none in Turkey), espouse a Greek national identity". There are articles on wikipedia in relation to Greece's linguistic minorities(some say they are ethnic too) that are pleonastic. For example Albanian-speakers of Western Thrace or Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. However since it is a contentious issue and that people from that community may or may not identify as a separate people, those names are seen best representative regarding the issue of what to call or describe them. The same should apply here also regarding Greek speaking Muslims. By calling these people "Greek Muslims", we are implying nationalistic notions that these people have an affinity with Greek identity. Yes they are Greek speaking and yes they used self appellations for themselves that Orthodox Greek speakers used for themselves: namely Romeieka for language and Romeios for self identification. Nonetheless, they did not identify with the modern Greek state or had produced people who were Greek nationalists and so on. As many Greeks on Wikipedia would remind Albanians and Macedonian contributors, just because some may speak a certain language and even use a self appellation on a local level does not make them affiliated to that nation, ethnicity or other in a modern sense. Most of these people are resident in Turkey and feel Turk even if they speak Greek dialects amongst themselves. They use the word Rumca to describe their language. Using a Greek source as an example to name these people is a little surreal. It would be like using Macedonian or Albanian sources to name Slavic speaking communities or Orthodox Albanian speaking communities in Greece on wikipedia with terminology that is concurrent in their socio-political or academic discourse, but which does not (fully) reflect the realities of those people today. Moreover, use of the Macedonian Muslims as an example does not suffice here, as a sizable portion of their community do share an affinity with the larger Macedonian identity and do use the self appellation of Macedonian Muslim for themselves. I ask fellow wikipedians to take these issues into consideration and conduct themselves with diligence on the matter. Edward Said once talked of Orientalism, of outsiders coming in and describing, using terminology for the Middle East that suited and made things appear easier for them without taking consideration of local peoples complexities. The title of this page Greek Muslims could be considered by Greek speaking Muslims as such a form of Orientalism. I ask that this page be renamed Greek-speaking Muslims as it is devoid of nationalistic connotations and reflect best the complex and accurate feelings of this community....

Survey[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
"Muslims of Greek descent" does not depend on people recognizing themselves as Greek. It merely needs descent. "Muslims of Greek extraction" similarly does not need self-identification as "Greek", merely a relationship in history. Muslim Greeks and Greek Muslims and Islamic Greeks are shorter, but would seem to indicate a closer relationship. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The contents of the article refer to descent, why the need to refer to it in the title. Though i understand where your coming from with this, a precedent has already been established with regards to the Arvanites and Slavic speakers in Greece and articles relating to them. There as the Greek editors have time and time again shown and rightly so that those people don't identify with such self appellations, even though they are of Albanian and Bulgarian/Macedonian descent respectfully and thus the title pages are not Orthodox Albanians in Greece or Bulgarian/Macedonians in Greece. The same should apply for this community and the most neutral title is Greek speaking Muslims as their language, apart from their past and current geographic location is what makes them a distinctive group. We should be fair and impartial and not impose other labels for the sake of expediency. Even the Greek term for this community in the infobox on the main page is Ελληνόφωνοι μουσουλμάνοι which translates to Greek speaking Muslims. I also think that this page should be linked to the Turkey portal on Wikipedia as well, considering that this community has historically identified as Turks and that most of them reside in Turkey today and play an important role in their society and not Greece's. Resnjari (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with a lot of what you say. It is true that this community was never an irredentism target for the short-lived Greek nationalism, the best proof is that they were sent away in the 1923 population exchange on grounds of religion. Actually, their Greek character was actually only underlined by later scholars new opinions surfaced about this exchange and the Greek-Turkish conflict. But this only adds to my confusion about your request. Nobody, not the article, nor its current title, implies that the current community in Turkey is disloyal to the Turkish state or a fifth-column of the Greek State, or I missed something. Also, the scope of the article goes way beyond the current community: it goes from the times of the Ottoman Empire and the devşirme to... Cat Stevens. In order to be the most WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE and cover the entire geographical and historical scope, the best (and neutral) title seems to me... Greek Muslims. Place Clichy (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main marker of these communities regarding their "Greek character" is their language. I am not disputing scholarly research. But it is they who state in their texts, which form the sources for this article that these people do not regard themselves as Greeks. Scholars also talk about the "Albanian" character of the Arvanites or the "Bulgarian/Macedonian" character of the Slavic speakers in Greece, yet the articles on wikipedia reflect the terminology that the communities themselves use, or at the very least neutral non provocative ones without agendas. Also i did not imply that somehow the article implies that these people were "disloyal Turks" or something along those lines. But if you do not include the important word speaking as the middle word in the title, then a person visiting the page will at first assume that the article is talking about Greeks who are Muslim, which is definitely not the case. All of these Greek speaking communities do not identify as Greeks. And yes there are the few in current times, (and i stress the few) who like Cat Stevens are of Greek heritage and may still identify as such, however, just because of those few that identify as such, it should not be the main indicator for imposing the term Greek on the rest of these people who only have Greek as a language, and do not have any ethno-affiliations to being Greek. The one main common factor that all these communities and individuals share is that they have Greek as a language that they speak. Its why the title Greek speaking Muslims does away with any bias issues and it is a neutral title which connects all these complex communities and individuals together, while stressing their main unique trait i.e: language. Resnjari (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Relisting comment: Greek, Islam and Ethnic Group Wikiprojects notified of the relisting of this RM and asked for input. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also notified Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board, although it does not seem to be very active these days. Place Clichy (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: In the lede it reads; " Muslims of Greek ethnic origin whose adoption of Islam..." Well it may be just the opposite also. "Turks who kept their religion but adopted Greek language in an area where the majority of the population speak Greek." Thus Greek speaking Muslims is a better title. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That still has the problem that many descendants of Greeks who are Muslim do not speak Greek but are still covered in this article. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The same can be said of the people regarding the article Albanian-speakers of Western Thrace or Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. Yet the article names are considered the most neutral and best regarding describing their past/current group formation. Precedents on wikipedia already exist in this regard. Resnjari (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Though stability of the article has been chosen as the main impetus for keeping the title as it is, people who chose convenience back then as opposed to discussing the merits of such a change due to a lack of expertise has resulted in the title today being problematic. I feel that a more wide ranging debate needs to take place by others who either come from such communities themselves or have expertise in the area. These people, mostly feel Turkish and not Greek, as academic sources and the people themselves have declared. I have voiced my concern with the title of this article as it infers certain identities i.e. "Greek" about a people who want nothing to do with a Greek identity. Their only connection to Greek culture is through language which they call by a different name, either Romieka (not used by Orthodox Greeks today) and Rumca in Turkish. It would be like saying and naming articles in wikipedia which would infer that current day English speaking USA are "English" when they do not feel so, even though lets say of the sake of argument that someone had named an article as such; and for the sake of stability no change occurred to rectify it. The next step, in accordance with wikipedia policy would be to undertake Publicising discussions and seeing what discussions would manifest.

Resnjari (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Greek Muslims" is the most NPOV title[edit]

Any further debate IMHO will not be particularly helpful considering the agendas at play here. "Greek-speaking Muslim" is totally POV and cannot be justified. What's next? Arabic-speaking Christians? English-speaking Germans? Persian-speaking Jews? This is ridiculous. "Greek Muslims" is the most NPOV title possible. Laval (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should also be noted that generalizing entire communities who reside in different countries based on some prejudice that they are not "Greek enough" or "more Turk than Greek" and other such nationalistic nonsense is far too prejudicial for our purposes here at Wikipedia. Considering the volatile position of religious, linguistic and ethnic minorities in both Turkey and Greece, it's far better to avoid opening any cans of worms that will result in a worse article than the version currently existing (which is still pretty bad, particularly the introduction). Lumping all Greek Muslims as "Greek-speaking Muslims" basically denies that they are "real" Greeks, even though their genetics cluster closely with other groups of Greek origins, rather than various Turkic groups. This is similar to the debate over the position of Azeris, who are not ethnic Turks, yet nationalist minded Turks (of Turkey) and the Republic of Azerbaijan claim them as being completely Turkic in blood, and so forth. These nationalistic issues are a nightmare to resolve and never get anywhere. Laval (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could not agree more. As an atheist Pontic Greek from a muslim family, I am only rejected by nationalist Turks and Greeks as being Pontic Greek. Resnjari likes to portray all muslim Greeks as though they do not recognize their Greek origin. Well I know for a fact that many muslim Greeks (especially Pontic Greeks) are very much proud of their language, culture and history. Some villages in Trabzon province even celebrate Momogeroi (Old-calendar new years eve) and the variant of Greek they speak is the most ancient variety of Greek, closest to Hellenistic Greek of all living languages (and they know this as well).NeoRetro (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May I also stress that the concept of Greek muslims (and the article) is not restricted to "today in Turkey". In a historical perspective (which I believe is not very much taken into account in the move discussion or in Resnjari's arguments), I don't believe the best way to describe the group is "Greek speakers of Muslim faith" (why the restriction?). And if memory serves me well, both the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey (in its nationalist years) talked consistently of the "Greek element" of the population, not the "Greek-speaking element" (as the "Armenian element", the "Jewish element"...). Place Clichy (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is interesting that many of you would like to name a people due to your convince without taking their national affiliations into consideration. For example Bulent Arinc, deputy Turkish prime minister and a fluent Cretan speaker who wants to make the Hagia Sofia a mosque would not call himself a Greek, yet he proudly speaks a Greek dialect. So NeoRetro, what do we make of him and many others ? Yet there are other articles which go against the grain of your argument if we apply the same standards which all of you seem to be very hypocritical. For example, when it comes to Albanian speaking populations in Greece we have articles titled Albanian-speakers of Western Thrace because as it would be wrong to have the title article Albanians in Western Thrace, right? (i don't see any of you arguing for a change there) Or we have another Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia when clearly it has been shown that a significant part of that population identify, yes as Greeks but they also identify as Macedonians, in the Slavic sense across the border. Yet these names we are told by many Greek editors are correct, because calling them Albanians and or just (Slavic) Macedonians is wrong, due to THEIR current national affiliations.
Also its not about "genetics" as Laval infers, or that i am somehow denying the "hellenic pedigree" of these people. Even suggesting that is a big issue considering that from the eleventh until roughly the fourteenth century, Anatolia underwent a process whereby it was mostly Orthodox and Greek speaking to a mainly Muslim and Turkish speaking region. The "Turkic" peoples that arrived there where small in number and the process of dissemination of the language occurred under an elite dominance-driven linguistic replacement model. (Laval see the article: Genetic history of the Turkish people). Thus are we going to call all current day Anatolian Turks, "Greek Muslims" today because their ancestors were once Greek or affiliated with something Greek (culture etc)? NO ! And furthermore that would be highly offensive. Have any of you taken that into account? Seriously have you? These peoples who are Greek speaking but Muslims consider themselves mostly Turkish as the bulk of the population resides in Turkey. Greece is not campaigning for any minority recognition nor are Greek organizations in Greece or organizations from these communities in Turkey. As such a neutral title for the article would be Greek speaking Muslims. It is neutral and non offensive without implying anything nationalist or other agendas, while still highlighting the important linguistic connection they have to the Greek language which they call either Romeika or Rumca, but defiantly not ellenika ! As for NeoRetro, just because there are many Greek speaking villages around Trabzon does not mean that they consider themselves as Greeks today. Like i said, the Arvanites have a few people who are ok with being or at least acknowledging they are Albanian. Amongst the Arvanites there are those who do recognize an Albanian identity like the late Arisidhis Kolias who wrote a widely sold publication about the Arvanites and Pelasgian origins, or Thanasis Moraitis, a musicologist recignising Albanian links. But the important thing to note is that they do not represent the majority community opinion. Most do not want to have anything to do with Albanians and that is why we don't call the Arvanites, Albanians.
Moreover, you would need to provide unbiased sources that today the national affiliations of Muslim Greek speaking people in the Trabzon area consider themselves Greek for the article, if that is the case, as has been done with he Arvanites regarding their perception to seeing themselves as Greeks. Moreover, you may not like the statements i have made, but your comments are based on ??? that i am somehow misrepresenting Greek speaking Muslims' identity "as though they do not recognize their Greek origin". What were are your sources regarding that (and Greek nationalist websites would not count)? ! This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper with opinion pieces. The article must at all times be representative of that, even if you may not like it. Greek speaking Muslims during the Ottoman era identified as Turks, due to the millet system. In the era of nationalisms that solidified into national affiliations, while for Muslim populations of the Ottoman state that did not occur and they choose other identities based on other factors. Greek nationalists during that era never bothered to make an attempt to include people who spoke Greek but where Muslim in the larger concept of Greek identity. Instead as they showed during the exchange of populations, they had no qualms about sending the Cretan and Muslim Greeks of Grevena to Turkey. Again Bulent Arinc is the most recent prominent figure to come out from the Muslim Greek speaking communities that support what i am saying. He thinks of himself as a Turk, not Greek ! Laval your comment that:
"Lumping all Greek Muslims as "Greek-speaking Muslims" basically denies that they are "real" Greeks, even though their genetics cluster closely with other groups of Greek origins, rather than various Turkic groups. This is similar to the debate over the position of Azeris, who are not ethnic Turks, yet nationalist minded Turks (of Turkey) and the Republic of Azerbaijan claim them as being completely Turkic in blood, and so forth."
is problematic to say the least. Genetic clusters are not predictors to a person's national affiliation or identification. So what the Anatolian populations have genetic clusters today that are in relation to Balkan and Middle Eastern peoples. Same with the Azeris regarding other Caucasian peoples. Those people underwent a complex identity and linguistic shift. You are not taking into consideration those realities. "Blood" is not a determining factor. We do not live in the nineteenth century and such arguments are in the dustbin of that century and the twentieth that created wars and so on. I recall the Nazis where into that style of thinking about "blood" polemics. Yes you may feel uncomfortable with what happened, you may say its the work of nationalists, but today these people feel Turkish and Azeri Turkish, not Greek or Iranian or something else. Are you going to tell a Turk that he needs to think of himself as a "Greek" because of "blood"? You can try, but the answer may also be one based on blood, depending on how the individual will take it.
As for Place Clichy, i have taken the historical perspective into account. In fact, it alongside today's situation are the determining factors of why it is problematic to call these people "Greek Muslims". When these people converted during the Ottoman era, they used the self appellation of Romioi and Romeika for language like other Orthodox Greek speaking people. They also regarded themselves as part of the Muslim millet and hence Turks. These differentiations took a different course during the nineteenth century with the founding of the Greek state, when Orthodox Greek speakers changed their self appellation of Romioi for Ellenes, the latter term with modern connotations of national affiliations of Greek identity as is understood today (see: Names of the Greeks). Greek speaking Muslims did not share in that process. Instead the millet term of Turk became the main expression of identity as it acquired national affiliations during the area of nationalisms of the past century. Moreover you state from "memeory" that "both the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey (in its nationalist years) talked consistently of the "Greek element" of the population, not the "Greek-speaking element" (as the "Armenian element", the "Jewish element"...)."
What you have stated is in reference to Orthodox Greek speaking populations who where recognised as Greeks by both the Ottomans and Turkish state. Greek speaking Muslims where NEVER recognised as belonging to a "Greek minority", not even by the Greek state itself which has never bothered to campaign or even raise an issue about a large Muslim Greek speaking population in Turkey because they regard themselves as Turks, not Greeks. Moreover, what you have alluded to as the "Armenian element, Jewish element, Greek element", were Ottoman recognized millets. This article is about a distinct grouping that was not mentioned within the millet system as being separate, but subsumed under the term Turk with complex identity constructions and linguistic issues. Please i urge those in here to be mindful of the history and facts before jumping to convenient conclusions which are very problematic. Moreover, its why i have said repeatedly that the article's title needs to be changed back to the neutral one of Greek speaking Muslims as this current title does not reflect such matters. As for Laval your comment that the title "Greek speaking Muslim" is a "POV" title is based on wind. I have pointed how Slavic speakers and Albanian speakers in Greece have their wikipedia article titles titled as such, and in case you have missed,, the reason why the article is Arab Christian and not Arabic-speaking Christians is because there are sizable amounts of people who do identity as Arab and being Christian, though the article does have issues as many reject that appellation. As for English speaking Germans, what are you on about ? As for Jews from Iran they have no issue with being called Persian Jews, so that is why the article name is such. I am being politically correct, something which Wikpedia policy abides by. The current title of the article is serious POV as it infers that all these peoples somehow today are "Greek" or Greek belonging. The issue of their origins are discussed within the article. That is not the main factor which determines their identity, and nor the title. The same standards and decency should apply since precedents with other articles are already set as outlined with regards to Slavic and Albanian speakers in Greece.

Resnjari (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TLDR. People can have an identity with multiple components. In this sense, the word Greek does not mean or imply not Turkish or unfaithful to Turkey. There are Greeks (both Christian and Muslim) on the territory of modern Turkey, and there has been for a very long time (do we need sources for that?); people can be at the same time Greek (Rum, or Romaioi as you put it) and Turkish (a citizen of the Republic of Turkey, going to the army, voting and all), especially Greek Muslims. This is not contradictory. To pick a random example of someone illustrating the article, Ahmed Vefik Pasha was (says the intro) a Greek-Ottoman statesman, and a Muslim, but calling him sth like "Greek-speaking Ottoman statesman" would be both misleading and anachronistic. So please stop worrying and trying to define people's identity in their own name. Place Clichy (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"People can have an identity with multiple components."
Yes i agree, but if the people themselves state that they wish not to be called something, should that not be respected (see the academic sources now in the article. I have provided the paragraphs too as some works can not be accessed by everyone. If you have access go look them up yourself, it is as it is.) ?
"There are Greeks (both Christian and Muslim) on the territory of modern Turkey, and there has been for a very long time (do we need sources for that?)"
YES. Greek editors have asked so for articles relating to Albanian or Slavic speakers in Greece within wikipedia. Go and have a little look at the talk pages on those articles. Why should not the same standard apply here? (In case there is doubt, i have put up a lot of sources now that were lacking regarding these matters). What makes this article different from those ? Moreover, to clarify there are Greeks in Turkey and Greek speaking Muslims in Turkey. They are not the same thing, as people from the community have told researchers and they when doing fieldwork amongst them have felt the need to mention that (again see the sources). As for the terms Romioi, yes both Orthodox Greeks (who spoke Greek) and Greek speaking Muslims used that as a self appellation or ethnonym at a local communal level, but the 19th century and the era of nationalisms changed all that. People who were Orthodox and Greek speaking abandoned that word for Ellenes (a self appellation for the people) and elenika for the language (see a fantastic discussion about that in Sarah Green (2005). Notes from the Balkans: Locating Marginality and Ambiguity on the Greek-Albanian border. Princeton University Press. p. 80-89). Whereas Greek speaking Muslims have opted en masse for Turkish identity. That is borne out in many scholarly articles and papers over the decades where findings often point to the communities (whether from Pontus, Cyprus, Crete etc) viewing with offense those who assert the contrary. Taking into account the scholarship is very important as it has standing. Moreover, in each academic source, the author whether Greek, Turk or other has taken care in not calling these people "Greek Muslims" but "Greek speaking Muslims". Now one must ask themselves and reflect, why is that, since to you and others that appears to be (to quote your words) "misleading and anachronistic" ? Are these scholars being "misleading and anachronistic" in their research, (even though they have spent time with these people and so far no one has pointed out issues with their scholarship. Unless you can find sources stating that, then i will be convinced.) ? For me no they are not. They are taking into consideration the views and sensitivities of the communities they have studied and we here should respect that considering that Wikipedia is not about revision or being fuzzy with the facts, if strong facts are there. By calling them Greek Muslims is POV (see the stuff by Hakan in the article).
"To pick a random example of someone illustrating the article, Ahmed Vefik Pasha was (says the intro) a Greek-Ottoman statesman, and a Muslim, but calling him sth like "Greek-speaking Ottoman statesman" would be both misleading and anachronistic."
Nope, its not. Its just clutter. Its good you pointed this out. For parts of this article where needed we should have Greek speaking /Muslim, in other parts like the bit you mention Grecophone /Muslim would do nicely. Unless the article states words that say "Greek origin" or "Greek descent", then we don't need to put Greek speaking as descent and origin do not infer they are Greek today (although in some places the word heritage would be better).
"So please stop worrying and trying to define people's identity in their own name."
Nope i have not done so. The academic sources support my position. Unless you can provide sources to the contrary. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not an opinion piece. In fact the title of this article and the rationale for its change was what people did many years ago for the sake of convenience. The article's title is extreme POV. If you have an issue with the term Greek speaking Muslims, go and email some of these academics and ask them why have they chosen to use the term Greek speaking Muslim instead of Greek Muslim for their work (the same goes for everyone else )? If you don't like the term Greek speaking Muslim, find academic sources where community opinion is mentioned which argue the contrary and do not use the term but Greek Muslim because that's what people from those communities 'might use'. Convince me through facts, not emotion.

Resnjari (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Justify your reverts with sources[edit]

Athenean, you seem to object that i put within the article the term Greek speaking instead of just Greek. You, as a long time editor on wikipedia with privileges must take into consideration that in peer reviewed academic articles for example such as that of Peter Mackridge who did fieldwork with Muslim Greek speakers refers to them as such and not "Muslim Greeks" (see: Greek-speaking Moslems of north-east Turkey: prolegomena to a study of the Ophitic sub-dialect of Pontic; link: http://www.academia.edu/2070228/Greek-speaking_Moslems_of_north-east_Turkey_prolegomena_to_a_study_of_the_Ophitic_sub-dialect_of_Pontic ). Mackridige points out on page 117 that these people have a "lack of any apparent sense of identity other than Turkish". He makes sure in his article that the only people he refers to as Greeks are the Christians. Turks who speak Greek he points out are Turkish and also calls them Greek speakers. And just incase you say that it is a miniscule reference, researcher Hakan Ozkan clarified in a peer reviewed Western Journal article titled "The Pontic Greek spoken by Muslims in the villages of Beşköy in the province of present-day Trabzon." Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 37.1 (2013): On pp.137-138 he writes apart from calling these people Greek or Muslim Pontic speakers:

Trabzon is well known for its staunch nationalists. Beşköy is no exception to this rule. Because of the danger of being perceived as Greeks (Rum) clinging to their language and culture, or even worse as Pontians who seek ‘their lost kingdom of Pontus’ (which is an obscure accusation voiced by Turkish nationalists), it comes as no surprise that MP-speaking people are particularly sensitive to questions of identity. It has to be clarified at this point that the English term ‘Greek’ is not identical to the Turkish Rum, which means Greek-speaking people of Turkey. Nobody in Beşköy would identify themselves as Yunan, which denotes everything Greek coming from Greece (T Yunanistan). However, as Rum is perceived in Turkey as linked in some way to Greece or the Orthodox Church, the Greek-speaking Muslims cannot easily present their language as their own, as other minorities in the Black Sea region such as the Laz do.

In addition to the reasons stated above, many of the MP-speakers of Beşköy strive to be the best Turks and the most pious Muslims. I had no encounter with MP-speakers without the issue of identity being brought up in connection with their language. After a while the MP-speakers themselves would begin to say something on this very sensitive topic. Precisely because of the omnipresence and importance of this issue I cannot leave it uncommented in this introduction. Nevertheless, I did not question people systematically with the use of prepared questionnaires about their identity, their attitude vis-à-vis the language, i.e. if they like speaking it, if they want to pass it on to their children consciously, if they encountered difficulties because they speak MP, if they consider themselves of Turkish or Greek descent, if they can be Turks and Greeks at the same time, and how they regard Greece and the Pontians who live there. Appropriate answers to these very important sociolinguistic questions can only be found through extensive fieldwork that is endorsed by the Turkish authorities and a dedicated analysis of the data in a sizeable article or even a monograph. Nevertheless, I would like to dwell on some general tendencies that I have observed on the basis of the testimonies of my informants on their attitudes to language and identity. Of course I do not claim that these views are representative of MP-speakers in general, but they reflect the overwhelming impression I had during fieldwork in the region. Therefore I deem it necessary and valuable to give a voice to their opinions here. Many of the MP-speakers I met deny the Greekness of their language, although they know at least that many words in Standard Modern Greek (SMG) are identical to the ones in MP. As a linguist I was often asked to join them in their view in favour of the distinctness of their language. Without telling a lie I tried to reconcile the obvious truth that MP is a Greek dialect with the equally true assertion that MP and SMG are two different languages in the way that Italian and Spanish are distinct languages, to the extent that some characteristics are very similar and others completely different. In most cases they were satisfied with this answer."

Margarita Poutouridou throughout her article: "The Of valley and the coming of Islam: The case of the Greek-speaking muslims." Bulletin of the Centre for Asia Minor Studies 12 (1997): 47-70. link: http://www.deltiokms.org/index.php/deltiokms/article/viewFile/74/388 also takes great care in calling the people Greek speaking Muslims, not "Greek Muslims". I wonder why that is. Is she "tendentious" too ?

Pietro Bortone. "Greek with no models, history or standard: Muslim Pontic Greek." Standard languages and language standards: Greek, past and present (2009): on pp 68-69 (link: http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=lang_en&id=LFP92YcT_RIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA67&dq=Greek+speaking+Muslim&ots=vSgrv5m5bm&sig=FMlSIyWyrwbw3P0l0HS3_OBajdc#v=onepage&q&f=false) calls them due to his fieldwork "Muslim Pontic Greek speakers" !

Charles Fraser Beckingham, in "The Turks of Cyprus." Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland (1957): on page 170 calls people from Cyrpus who are Muslim and Greek speaking "Greek speaking Muslims" as such and writes the following important observation: "While many Turks habitually speak Turkish there are 'Turkish', that is, Muslim villages in which the normal language is Greek; among them are Lapithou, Platanisso, Ayios Simeon and Galinoporni. This fact has not yet been adequately investigated. With the growth of national feeling and the spread of education the phenomenon is becoming not only rarer but harder to detect. In a Muslim village the school teacher will be a Turk and will teach the children Turkish. They already think of themselves as Turks, and having once learnt the language, will sometimes use it in talking to a visitor in preference to Greek, merely as matter of national pride.

Dimitris Livanios in his article "The Quest for Hellenism: Religion, Nationalism and Collective Identities in Greece (1453-1913)." The Historical Review/La Revue Historique 3 (2008): 33-70. on page 42 he states "because in Macedonia there were also Greek-speaking Muslims, the valaades." Notice that he uses the words Greek-speaking Muslims and not Greek Msulims to describe the valaades. Oh, but wait but Livanios too might be "tendentious" also. I do not base my changes on some lie or some agenda. I base them on fact. When i say that people from these communities do to want to be refereed to as Greek i am not lying or making it up. It is the same situation with the Arvanites in Greece when they state they are not Albanians. I don't know what more i would have to do to outline this. I have followed Wikipedia guidelines regarding providing ample sources. Yet your reason for reverting the changes are that i am a "tendentious editor". And also the claims of others here too (Its bad enough that the article title is POV as it does not reflect the communities opinion that they are mostly Turkish today though Greek speaking which does not make them Greek. Its interesting that you resort to that without privileging your rationale or even academic sources for it. As an editor with privileges one would expect more from you. I am justified in my edit, unless you can provide a reason otherwise. Sizable amounts from the Muslim Greek speaking community see the term Greek as problematic at best and offensive at worst, even if you or others are uncomfortable with that. I urge you to take into serious consideration these views from the community themselves and academics (who are aware and sensitive of these issues, who have lived or studied these people) before trying to impose shortened forms of words because its convenient, when it might infer something that if incorrect and goes against the communities wishes.

Resnjari (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Athenean, i see you have reverted again the changes made regarding my additions of the word "speaking" between the words "Greek" and "Muslim". The only explanation you have given is "enough". Enough of what ? Numerous scholarly studies that have dealt with these communities whether on a small scale or large (as is provided throughout the article) use the term Greek speaking Muslim/s to describe these populations, not Greek Muslims. They have taken the communities sensitivities and consideration into account about the use of the word Greek (as is again pointed out in the sources). You on the other hand have provided no reason for your reverts, nor bothered to even outline your position through scholarly material or otherwise. Within the article, the sub-titles for many sections contain the words Greek Muslim, when it should be Greek speaking Muslim. That needs to change so it is in line with the usage of scholarly material and the communities wishes themselves. Greek speaking Muslim is a neutral term while Greek Muslim is not. Grecophone Muslim for some of the subtitles can be acceptable also as it means the same thing as Greek speaking. I urge you to give reasons for your change and outline your position. Name calling as you did before by referring to me as "tendentious" or references to "enough" though based on what really calls into question your skills as an editor with privileges. As an editor you are supposed to take into account if there is any offensive terms or material in an article. I have mind you now pointed out with extensive academic sources why there needs to be change. Please convince me why those changes are not needed ? We do not have the word Albanian for Arvanite everywhere, except when the articles talks about their language or origins in their article. Same principle should apply here. What makes this different ? Resnjari (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TLDR. Don't expect anyone to read these walls of text you dump on a regular basis. Several users have already explained to you why your edits are problematic, but you are refusing to listen, instead posting one massive wall of text after another. There is a clear consensus against your edits(5 users at least), and I have had quite enough of this. You are now deep in WP:DIS and WP:TEND territory. Any further disruption will be dealt with using procedures the wikipedia community has developed for dealing with this kind of disruption. This is the last warning you will receive from me, if you revert again I will report you to the appropriate noticeboard. Athenean (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Athenean, i will keep this simple for you considering that you like things simple. The reason why i "dump" these walls of text is so that the edits can be discussed, something which you as an editor with privileges seem to want to ignore. You say ignore other editors on this page. They stated that my rationale for change and so on was based on nothing. Well, i have placed a multitude of sources up that completely contradict the title of the article and make some of the description like "Greek Muslims" be POV words for a people that think of themselves as Turks. I am glad for you invoking Wikipedia policy. I can very easily state that your in violation of WP:TEND. The following is said in that page (my answers in capitals):

"First and foremost, however bad you believe the faults of your accusers are, think long and hard about your own behaviour. Critique it in your mind with the same vigor you critique theirs. Is there not at least a germ of truth in what they say? Have you perhaps been less civil than you should have been? Have you provided high quality citations from reliable secondary sources to back your edits? YES In addition, it may be a good idea to scrutinize all your behavior this way, even if you are not presently involved in a dispute, so that such disputes may not arise in the first place. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia – a tertiary source. If what you want to say is genuinely verifiable, then it should be possible to find at least one reputable and respected authority who says the same thing in pretty much the same words. It’s fine to précis the arguments of other authorities, but it’s not acceptable to editorialise or interpret them. If only one authority says something then to include it might constitute undue weight, or it might be acceptable by agreement with other editors to state the opinion duly attributed to the named authority."

In case you and others have missed it, i have provided a multitude of sources. Not one or two, but many from Greek, Western and other areas of academia. Moreover i have even included the paragraphs, sections and so on regarding these matters, in case there is doubt. They repeatedly state that these people self identify as Turks and have issues with being called Greek. Why don't you want to discuss the issue as an editor about how we can solve these issues. I have been in tow with wikipedia policy. Because people who continued to contribute (very little) to this article neglected much input of the material and lacked expertise in this area. That has been provided now. Thankyou of informing of Wikipedia procedure, by the way. I do have a question for you though, if you are going at least give me the common courtesy of a reply, why in the first paragraph, first sentence, did you delete after the words Greek Muslims', > also known as Greek-speaking Muslims. That was not my edit, but a long standing accepted consensus paragraph, sentence prior to my ever having edited this article. I am very curious to know ? That should be restored considering that in the info box next to it we have the term Ελληνόφωνοι μουσουλμάνοι. They are also known as Greek speaking Muslims (actually that is the main term used in academia). I thought that placing sources next to that would be the most obvious option. I'll wait and see if you reply over the next few days.

Plenty of sources use "Greek Muslims" [13] instead of "Greek-speaking Muslims". Now stop filibustering. Athenean (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Greek muslims in Turkey call themselves Rum or Romoi, not Yunan. If you ask them what they are they usually say "Rum", and if you ask them if they are Turks, they will say yes ofcourse, so what. If you ask Frisians if they are Dutch, will they deny? Instead of the 'modern' name, Greek Muslims use medieval ethnic markers! So this does not mean they don't identify as Greeks, it only means they have not been affected by Greek nationalism from 18th-19th century. So they feel part of a minority in Turkey, while being part of the Turkish nation. Even though there is some discrimination and many bad jokes in Turkey against them, Greek Muslims from eastern Trabzon province are very prominent in Turkish politics, culture, science and religion and have been for centuries. See the many preachers from Of, 5th president of Turkey from Caykara, President Erdogan who calls the village of his family Potamia in live broadcasted speech.NeoRetro (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neo Retro, please provide sources. I can say the same thing about Orthodox Albanian speaking peoples in Greece. And guess what i have put all sourced material regarding that (well in the Albanian version of the Arvanites article: yes even the paragraphs from studies relating to that sq:Arvanitët. Those paragraphs cited are in English, Please feel free to read it). What you have done here is to place original research, based on personal which cannot even be verified. Here in Melbourne, a have a few Turkish friends who are from Pontus and i have heard their grandparents talk Greek. I asked them once about it, they said they speak Rumca and were Turk. Now i can write that down in the article, but then all for you will say what's that based on? Where are your academic sources ? Moreover, to clarify, president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is of Muslim Georgian descent. He himself refereed to himself that way when he was in Georgia. Muslim Georgian identity is different in Turkey. Many acknowledged ties to Christian Georgians and so on. He never called himself Greek. As for his village name, you are aware that in Eastern Pontus, in some areas Greek and Lazic and Gerogian areas overlapped. So his village of Potamya has a historical Greek connection, but not he. In Greece for example there are settlements in the Peloponnese until recently that bore a Slavic name but the population was not Slavic and so on. Also, i do agree with you and did state on similar terms with you that "Instead of the 'modern' name, Greek Muslims use medieval ethnic markers!" But as i pointed out, one today's Greeks don't use Romioi as an ethnonym, but ellenes which differentiates them from current day Muslim Greek speakers, and two that does not mean today's Muslim Greek speakers of Turkey are Greek. As they have repeatedly told researchers they do not feel Greek. Have a read of the sources. Yes there may be people like you who feel otherwise, but unless you can find a scholarly source that states that, then i go by what has been published until now. Also there are problems of using ethnic markers used by a people to determine current day ethnic affiliations. If you where to go to Thesprotia and Preveza prefecture (or the few Florina villages, up north in Macedonia)today in Greece, you will find in many villages that the population speaks Albanian and they call in Shqip (as as other Albanians. see article Cham Albanians). They are Orthodox. They call the language Shqip, like i do, some even still use the ethnonym of Shqiptar for themselves when conversing in Albanian like i do and other Albanians also (e.g.: from Kosovo). Yet they regard themselves as Greeks and disregard all links with Albanians in general. And i respect them for that. Another example is Arvanites use the medieval appellation of Arberesh, but in no way consider themselves Albanians. An ethnonym does not determine what a people are today. It may refer to origins, but that is another matter from current day self perceptions of self and community. It is important to be aware of that, as scholars have done when researching and writing about these communities and others. We too need to be aware and take into consideration these communities views.

Resnjari (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resnjari, Erdogan has also denied being Georgian. Most villages in the Trabzon-Rize area were ethnically homogeneous; either Chepni Turkmen, Laz Georgian, Hemsin Armenian, Pontic Greek. I think it's more likely Erdogan referred to the Turkish colloquialism "Laz" as "all black sea Turks", instead of implying true Georgian decent. Is Bakatoğlu Memiş a Laz name? Potamia is situated within the historical Of-Pontic dialect region, Laz and Hemsin was spoken to the east and southeast of this area. Anyway, I didnt try to imply Erdogan is Pontic Greek. I just meant to illustrate why most Muslim Greeks in the eastern Pontus also feel Turks, as persons from their communities are accepted in high positions in Turkish society. NeoRetro (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Umm, in case you missed it, it is well referenced that Erdogan back in the 2000s said he was of Georgian origin. It has also been well referenced on the Wikipedia page about that too. He denied it recently because Turkish nationalists were using it against him to imply he is not Turkish enough. In the end he choose electoral gain and self image. Regarding the Laz, no he did not say Laz, he said Georgian, you know Gurcu (that is the words Milliyet used when they quoted him, not Laz). But, the thing to ask is why did he state he had Georgian origins in the first place, if he didn't ? I wonder ? It did come out of his mouth after all. Would you have answers for that. As for village names Turkey, like Greece went around renaming settlements and so on. Who founded and populated them is academically important to know, but it has no bearing on what a people may think of themselves in current times. As for "I just meant to illustrate why most Muslim Greeks in the eastern Pontus also feel Turks, as persons from their communities are accepted in high positions in Turkish society." You are speaking for yourself, and that's fine. However, according to wikipedia policy, the articles content should be based on reputable academic sources, not on a personal experience. Regarding the Grecophone Muslim community in Pontus, they have overwhelmingly stated they feel ONLY Turkish and they even told those researchers that they have issues with the word Greek (its in the article). It is the same with other Grecophone Muslims. They self identify as Turks ONLY (even in Greece, where a few Cretan Muslims went to live on the Dodacanese before it became part of Greece. After 1948, they are part of Greece, hence the "mother country" since they are Greek speakers, but they identify solely as Turks. See article for more, its referenced). A minority may have different views, but you must provide ACADEMIC sources which state the contrary or that there are others who feel differently. The experience of yourself or a few others would not suffice here as it is original research (as stated in Wikipedia policy regarding original research) in the larger article. Its the same with the Arvanites and other Albanian speakers in Greece, a few may have some identification regarding Albanian identity, but the majority do not support that view and consider themselves solely as Greeks. It just how people view themselves, whether or not one thinks strongly about them doing or not doing so that is a whole other matter and not for the article but in the realm of opinion pieces and other discussion on forums etc. If you thought that somehow i am against you or something, that is not the case. For example, regarding most Albanians, it is difficult for them to stomach that Orthodox Albanian speaking peoples do not want to identify as Albanians (even the ones in Albania too these days display more and more those views of not wanting to be Albanian). And with the passing of time there are more and more academic studies to that effect. Now i can ignore it and say whatever, or take note and say well that's their choice and i respect them for that. Same with your community, most self identify as Turks, and solely as Turks, not Greeks.

Resnjari (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

REPLY TO ATHENEAN: Calm down. First of all why are you making an accusation of "filibustering". This is the talk page for the article. Wikipedia policy allows for talk, does it not? I thought it was a democratic forum. Anyway, you provided a google search of the term "Greek Muslims". Yes there are over 800 mentions of it in books. Now following Wikipedia policy on the matter (Search engine test; and to quote it) we need to be aware that "search results should be reviewed with an awareness and careful skepticism before relying upon them."

Hence, as i went through each page, (yes, each page !) and went through a good many of those (sometimes at random, if the term did not appear on the main page to see if the term was there), a couple of issues came up. One the term "Muslim Greeks" was (in majority) a term used to reference the Muslim minority in Greece (i urge you to go through the search link that you posted and to do a thorough check). If we were to use that search that you provided as an arbitrary indicator to name wikipedia articles regarding the Muslim presence in Greek Thrace, then article titles should not be Muslim minority of Greece and Turks of Western Thrace, but Greek Muslims, as the search mainly is in reference to those populations. But the wikipedia articles do not use the term "Muslim Greeks" for those titles or the content within to refer to those people (Turks, Pomaks etc) as Muslim Greeks. The articles would not be taking aboard the issues about why that would be causing POV. It can get problematic in this instance.

And secondly there were books that had the term Greek and Muslim within them, but where far separated on the pages and had nothing to do with anything Greek and Muslim regarding Turkey and Greece (e.g. see a book example: [14] ). According to Wikipedia policy, it states that these searches regarding Verifiability that:

"Search engine tests may return results that are fictitious, biased, hoaxes or similar. It is important to consider whether the information used derives from reliable sources before using or citing it. Less reliable sources may be unhelpful, or need their status and basis clarified, so that other readers gain a neutral and informed understanding to judge how reliable the sources are."

And also regarding Neutrality that:

"Google (and other search systems) do not aim for a neutral point of view. Wikipedia does. Google indexes self-created pages and media pages which do not have a neutrality policy. Wikipedia has a neutrality policy that is mandatory and applies to all articles, and all article-related editorial activity. As such, Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles – only of popular ones. Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity."

And also regarding Notability:

"Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none, for reasons discussed further down this page. Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results. On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability. Additionally, search engines do not disambiguate, and tend to match partial searches. (However, as described below, you can eliminate partial matches by quoting the phrase to be matched): While Madonna of the Rocks is certainly an encyclopedic and notable entry, it's not a pop culture icon. However, due to Madonna matching as a partial match, as well as other Madonna references not related to the painting, the results of a Google or Bing search result count will be disproportionate as compared to any equally notable Renaissance painting. To exclude partial matches when Goggling for the phrase, quote the phrase to be matched as follows: "Madonna of the Rocks"."

The search above that you have presented, though interesting does (apart from a few mentions to the subject matter in fleeting reference) not pertain to the subject matter about these communities contained within the article. I also did a Google scholar search of Greek Muslims [15] (as wikipedia policy does state that Google scholar search's "provides evidence of how many times a publication, document, or author has been cited or quoted by others. Best for scientific or academic topics. Can include Masters and Doctorate thesis papers, patents, and legal documents."). A similar thing happened with that search like your google books one, the majority of the content with the words "Greek Muslims" was in reference to Greek Thrace and its Turkish and Pomak populations which has nothing to do with this article. So using that as a predictor to the matter does not suffice in this case.

While i did a Google scholar search for the words "Greek-speaking Muslims" [16]. After checking, most of the results came back directly relating to the subject matter of this article. If anything i came across a few good more sources/studies that i will be adding to the article about Grecophone Muslim literature in Ioannina and Crete. I also did a Google books search on the words "Greek-speaking Muslims" [17] and many of the results pertain to the subject matter directly also.

Look regarding the content of this article, it lacked much that has been published on these communities. The debates that i previously engaged with about the Move transfer or subject titles was done probably not in the best of ways as i was basing it on stuff i had read without placing the references to it as there was a lot, a i have being engaging with other topic on wikipedia regarding content and sources on other articles. So in that sense, the fault was mine. However, i have now provided numerous sources and the paragraphs (for those who cannot access those texts) now and even digital links of articles if possible, as i know the subject matter is a sensitive topic and want to provide as much material as possible to we can have a discussion. I am not pushing an agenda. Numerous academic studies by peer reviewed journals and so on have published on these communities. They refer to them as "Greek-speaking Muslims" because the have taken into account these peoples concerns about these matters. Another example would be how scholars refer to the Arvanites in their works. They do not call them Albanians and state this too why people from the community feel that way. You say i went against a "consensus" or that i did not take on board their views. How am i to take on board their views when an editor talked about "common blood origins", another though from one of these communities was inferring that he basically spoke for the whole of these communities(well in the fieldwork studies of the academics cited, which wikipedia states academic information must come from it says something else, so original research does not count), and another kept mixing up the millet system, Orthodox Greeks and so on even after i pointed it out to him through sources and so on. I am still trying to work out what that type of consensus that was based on. It sure was not according to wikipedia standards of it being based on scholarly material (it’s all on the talk page) or Wikipedia FAQ which states that: "The text of Wikipedia articles should assert facts, but not assert opinions as fact" [18]. I thus feel that your reverts, even of a sentence that i was in no way responsible for writing (e.g. also known as Greek-speaking Muslims.< without justifying why) and has been there for many years was also unjustified. I am widely read on this matter and this is a topic of interest to me. I know you may find that "these walls of text" i "dump" tedious to read, but you are an editor with privileges and when there are issues cited with an article you need to discuss those, not ignore. On another article Cham Albanians that i have done numerous changes to, though at first it was a little tense with the editor Alexikoua, it was through the "dumping of text" (to use your expression) in the talk page that the article has been cleaned up and if anything a lot of the POV issues cleared up. Moreover, the citing of sources that i brought to the table (which might have been overlooked by others or not even come across) is now in the article. The exchange between me and Alexikoua has proved to be quite interesting and good. But, very importantly, it has been based on the sources. The consensus you are referring to in here has been either on convenience and other matters as outlined above, without it being based on the scholarship. According to Wikipedia policy as explained in its FAQ, it says that:

"While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time. Obvious exceptions are articles about living people or clear vandalism, but generally there is no need for text to meet the highest standards of neutrality today if there's a reasonable chance of getting there.

Also, determining whether a claim is true or useful, particularly when few people know about the topic, often requires a more involved process to get the opinions of other editors. It's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page or at a relevant WikiProject. Discussing contentious claims helps editors to evaluate their accuracy and often leads to better sourcing and clearer phrasing.

Which is what i am doing and through to use your expression "text dumping". I come from a scholarly Humanities background; we discuss very finely these matters. Scholars dealing which these communities overwhelmingly refer to them as Greek-speaking Muslims. There may be issues of clutter about always using the term so like i said to Place Clichy that "Grecophone Muslim" would also be good too as it means the same thing, but not Greek Muslim for the outlined reasons. In areas that deal with descent and origin the word Greek next to them can stay. It would be absurd to remove it in that context as prior to these people becoming Muslim they expressed a different identity affiliated with Greek (though complicated, i have stated it in detail to Place Clichy above if you want to read it). I urge you to take into consideration these issues and to reflect upon them by reading the sources and not be dismissive of my edits them as you have repeatedly done. Consensus needs to be reached through the evaluation of the scholarship. If undertaking this process is an issue (time constraints etc) than other editors who either have a interest like i do on the matter, or even expertise should be here so as to refine and make the article better coming from the Turkish or Greek wikiprojects.

Resnjari (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TLDR, again. In case you hadn't noticed, the title of this article is"Greek Muslims", and there is a reason for that. So that is what we should be using throughout the article. Athenean (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are numerous issues as is outlined with that (please read, as i discuss this below). You say there is A reason for that, but there are counter reasons for why that is a issue and is POV. First off, in a important and related Wikipedia article titled Muslim minority of Greece (its important because the google scholar results you offered related overwhelmingly for this community), within its contents, apart from the title and one first mention and the very beginning, the article title is not used throughout the article. Instead the contents of the article have taken certain ethno-cultural sensitivities into account. Words such as "Muslim minority", though mainly "Turks" and "Pomaks" are what is used throughout the article. Now if what you say about the title forming the naming conventions of content within the article are to form a precedent everywhere on Wikipedia (without taking into the neutrality policy into account, discussed below), why has a different approach been undertaken in the Muslim minority of Greece article? Since your a editor with privileges, are you going to also going to say the same thing about that article, and do what you did with regards to deletions. Within this article the terms "Greek speaking Muslims anf "Grecophone Muslims" are well documented in academic literature. i could if i wanted to make the case for "Greek speaking Turks" or even "Greek Turks" as that is what the communities identify as, per the sources. But as academia as done the neutral term of Greek speaking Muslims is best. Hence, there are more than enough sources which point to a counter direction, of what you wrote. At the very least, the internal content of the article should include terms that are not POV. In many of the academic sources, people of these communities have stated why they have issues with being called "Greek" and some find it offensive. The internal contents need to take that into account and reflect that. Using neutral terms like Greek-speaking Muslims and or Grecophone Muslims alleviates that issue. You also deleted a important sentence which had been there for years which added clarification to the matter. You have not explained why it required deletion (e.g: also known as Greek-speaking Muslims. Similar sentences in the lede also exist in other articles and are precedents regarding the matter, e.g. Uluru, Navajo people etc.). Are these communities not also known as "Greek speaking Muslims", in academia and so on as the sources names them only as such and not "Greek Muslims". Why was that sentence deleted? It should be restored, with footnotes placed next to it to clarify it. According to Wikipedia policy (Neutral point of view) regarding neutrality:
"Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias'. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia."
"Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize."
"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."
There are a multitude of (very detailed) and reliable academic sources which are now within the article that were not there before. Some have very clearly stated the issues around the term Greek (about the word when being on its own, when talking about Grecophone Muslims) and the communities feeling towards it. Using the neutral terms "Greek speaking Muslim/s" alleviates that and due to clarity/clutter issues there is also the term "Grecophone Muslim/s" which means the same thing that can be used too (The terms are academically sourced, while the term "Greek Muslim" is academically sourced for the Turkish and Pomak Muslim minority in Greece). It is important that the article does not, as per wikipedia policy to "neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject" and that it should be based on "what reliable sources say about the subject". Reliable sources are provided. Neutral terms are in existence on the matter that do not disparage the subject. A wikipedia administrator Mike Cline who closed the second Move discussion stated on this page and wrote: "My suggestion is to make the appropriate adjustments within the article to clarify any misconceptions. This is more a content issue than a title issue." Apart from issues with the title, content which those words form part of, are an issue. Please take these issues into consideration and reflect, as per the Wikipedia policy on Neutrality regarding the matter.

Resnjari (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You unsuccessfully tried to move the article to "Greek speaking Muslims" recently, and that didn't work, so now you are trying to achieve the same thing through the back door. It's not going to work. You're not as clever as you think you are, and others are not as dumb as you think they are. Athenean (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, i tried a move recently. What does that have to do with the issues raised, and your dismissive behavior and refusal to give a actual rationale from wikipedia policy regarding why the content of the article must have "disparaging" words regarding the subject matter. Moreover i am following wikipedia guidelines regarding dispute resolution. I am surprised at the language you are using. You as an editor with privileges should be wary in calling people "dumb" or "clever". It is a personal attack and people may consider it ABUSE, especially with the first word. And in case you missed it, i have never called anyone those words. And inferring that i have through words like "think", concerns me that (as you have privileges) you may make edits or undo other edits not based on the content or academic sources, but on other matters or agendas or even a dislike of an editor (going by the language you have thus used thus far towards me). Other examples of this are accusations of me following wikipedia policy of discussion and deliberation by stating that i am "trying to achieve the same thing through the back door". So the talk page and discussion within based on the sources (as per wikipedia policy) is a "back door"? And your a editor with privileges ? Interesting. Moreover, i am still trying to work out, how you 'know' my thought processes? Just to make sure in case there is doubt out there, only i am privy to that and no one else. Why are you speculating about that? How does my cognitive faculties have any bearing regarding these matters, or even to call it into question ? I hope its not because i am Albanian, Athenean, that you are dismissive and resorting to speculation about my cognitive faculties (there is already a sad history of that in Balkans regarding Albanians by non-Albanians with regrettable and often violent Albanophobic results)? All i have been passionate about is that the content of the article does not have POV and that is based on the sources (as per wikipedia policy). You seem not to want to take into consideration even these matters. Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint, as i have expressed previously, and like i said to NeoRetro i respect them for that, but it should be based on the sources as per wikipedia policy. Unlike before, I have now based the changes made and those very few left needing to be done on the sources and it would be good of you to do so to make your case based on the sources and follow wikipedia policy as i am doing. As wikipedia policy regarding Dispute resolution states:

When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page.

To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war.

You said stop with the edits regarding the contentious matter, so i did. I am going by the first part of the Dispute resolution policy by discussing this with you in good faith. Yet you are dismissive about this.

"Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus. Try negotiating a truce or proposing a compromise through negotiation."

I have, yet your dismissive about it, by calling it "text dumping" and now making assumptions about my cognitive faculties. I have ceased editing the content regarding the matter and is a "truce" to use wikipedia terminology.

"Do not continue edit warring; once sustained discussion begins, productively participating in it is a priority. Uninvolved editors who are subsequently invited into the dispute will be confused and alarmed if there are large numbers of reverts or edits made while discussion is ongoing"

Your dismissive tone does not show you participating in trying to resolve the matter.

"Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital. Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation."

"Focusing on content, and not bringing up conduct, can be difficult if it seems other editors are being uncivil or stubborn. Stay cool! It is never to your benefit to respond in kind. When it becomes too difficult or exhausting to maintain a civil discussion based on content, you should seriously consider going to an appropriate dispute resolution venue detailed below; but at no juncture should you lose your temper. Wikipedia is not like the rest of the Internet: we expect editors to be polite and reasonable at all times."

I on the other hand, have been focusing solely on the content. While you on the other hand are making assumptions, not even on my conduct, but on my cognitive faculties ! I wonder where in Wikipedia policy does it say that about speculating on what peoples thoughts are ? When did wikipedia policy become Orwellian ? By claiming that you know my thinking is apart from being borderline offensive creating a distraction from the issue at hand that is in need of discussion. I have being going through and following wikipedia policy. In good faith i wish to engage with you, without your dismissive and speculative language. The discussion should be based on wikipedia policy which as i outlined in the above post (by invoking wikipedia policy) that it should be based on academic sources in trying to resolve the matter. I hope you will engage with the sources and i would welcome any new material that supports your position, if it is out there. But, i would need to see your academic sources, to be convinced that the issues i have pointed out are not treating the subject matter in a disparaging way. Maybe some days or a week cooling off period for you to be able to outline your side is needed. But if this dismissive language continues, wikipedia policy does have other steps to resolve these matters and i may have to proceed to that next step with outside help dispute resolution.

Resnjari (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A question[edit]

Does this page includes Turkish people who immigrated to Turkey after population exchange? Because this article is a bit, what should i say, made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.198.1 (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its not the content of the article that is an issue. Due to my edits, i have provided peer reviewed sources that clearly state these people only speak Greek but in no way do they identified as Greeks. They say outright and feel Turk. The issue with this article is the name of it. The title infers that they are Greek, which is wrong. These people are Greek speaking. That is a difference. I have done all i can,, its now time for editors of a Turkish and Muslim background to push for a title change.Resnjari (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a difference between nationality and ethnicity. The sources you used also state reasons why people are unwilling to identify openly with a minority ethnicity in Turkey, especially towards foreign researchers. You fail to point out such nuances. There are also cases of individuals who do claim Pontic Greek cultural heritage (for instance writer Ömer Asan and singer Apolas Lermi, or myself and elderly Muslim Greek seakers I know), do you think it is wrong of them to identify in such a way? I think your conception of what constitutes Greekness is a bit nationalistic, which is in fact one of the reasons why many Pontian Greek Muslims are afraid to speak out (and what forces them into Turkish nationalism). NeoRetro (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you have peer reviewed sources on the matter, do so (and also provide inline's too). However most of the community identifies solely as Turks. What state processes lead to that is up to you to outline using peer reviewed sources. Nonetheless, today and starting from the 1980s when Western scholars did fieldwork amongst this community, people kept telling them they feel Turkish and only Turkish, not Greek.Resnjari (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The scope of this article is not restricted to the period starting from the 1980s and the territory of the Republic of Turkey. Of course people from this community who live in Turkey, today, are faithful and lawful citizens of Turkey. It is you, Resnjari, repeating this again and again and again that give the opposite feeling (maybe it is your point of view, and as NeoRetro writes maybe your view on the subject is a bit nationalistic). Also, they probably speak Turkish more often than Greek in their daily lives. However, in a historical perspective, the Greek heritage is a defining element of this community, otherwise the title would be Turkish Muslims. Maybe Greek communities of Muslim faith, in all parts of the Ottoman empire and other countries, in all periods of time, should be the focus of inputs to this article. Place Clichy (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All i am going to say is this. Back yourself up with peer reviewed scholarship like i have. Otherwise its opinion and wp:original research. Fieldwork regarding these communities has mainly started in the 1980s when questions about self-identification were put to Grecophone Muslim communities. Before that it is somewhat difficult to ascertain. Like i said to the previous editor, if you have peer reviewed material backing your point, then add it, otherwise, no. As for "they probably speak Turkish more often than Greek in their daily lives" i have fully cited it in the article that for a sizable minority (for the Pontic Grecophone Muslim community) that is not the case. Some do not have knowledge of Turkish at all due to their geographic isolation and conservatism. That said they still identify as Turk only and disavow any links to being Greek. Please base statements at least on facts and not conjecture. So just in case anything has been missed, when fieldwork has been done, the respondents from these communities have time and time again refused any identification with being Greek. That is fact and based on Western peer reviewed scholarship. And like Neoretro, I also know some number of people here in Melbourne from Grecophone Muslim communities and they are the most nationalistic of any Turks i have ever met. They feel they are Turks and that they do not even speak Yunanca (i.e Greek), but Rumca. That's how it is with them. They are Greek speaking Turks, as the scholarship bears out.Resnjari (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are employing the present tense ("they are...") and I keep trying to tell you about historical perspective vs. presentism. The subject of your, may I say, passion, is post-1980s Turkey, and we keep telling you that this is not (not only) the subject of this article. Ibrahim Edhem Pasha and Hayreddin Barbarossa were dead long before 1980, as were the first generation of Byzantines who converted after the Conquest (and they were totally Greek, while being Muslims). Place Clichy (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If one was to look at the whole historical period of Anatolia going back say up to the Battle of Manzikert, Anatolia was Orthodox and Greek speaking and i have never denied that. Speros Vryonis in the wide-ranging study called The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century chronicled that process for the most part and very little of that analysis has been disproven (except issues of contestation have been it differed in some places over others etc). That process resulted in today current day Turkish population. Pockets of Greek speakers that became part of the Ottoman state much later like Trabzon, Crete, the Grevena valley of Macedonia etc converted to Islam, though did not undergo a linguistic and to some extent a full identity change (eg. retention of word for language Romeyka and at times self appellation of Romiaois). By the 20th century these people especially like the Cretans where very pro-Turkish. Also Greeks in Greece did not see Grecopohne Muslims as fellow compatriots, as outlined in the article. Now regarding for what you call "historical perspective", the article covers the modern era because most of the research on the community has occurred about and during the modern era. And when fieldwork had been conducted, Grecophone Muslims have over and over again told in no unequivocal terms that they are Turks, not Greeks. In the article the conversion process has already been outlined, if you have read it. What was missing in the past was what these people identified as today. The peer reviewed sources I added have filled that gap of contemporary times. These people overwhelmingly feel Turkish. Also about the first generation of converts of the medeevil era and thereafter, you have no peer reviewed sources explaining what they “felt” or how they defined Greek, if at all. So far its WP:original research. My “passion” as you call it is for facts and that the article reflects that even if information may not be to a other persons liking. If you want to edit the article, do so, any addition though must reflect peer reviewed material. This community to use their own designations feel Turk, are Musliims and only have knowledge/speak Greek.Resnjari (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Medievil era" ?? Have you read any of the sources you used? Because it doesn't seem like it. I never said anything about "the first group of converts". Anyway, that is 17th and 18th century... not the middle ages! "Also Greeks in Greece did not see Grecopohne Muslims as fellow compatriots, as outlined in the article." This depends on what source you read. "And when fieldwork had been conducted, Grecophone Muslims have over and over again told in no unequivocal terms that they are Turks, not Greeks." Yes. So? In national terms they are Turks and not Greeks. This has nothing to do with ethnic cultural heritage. NeoRetro (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes i did. From the 1400s onward the Ottoman state expanded into the Balkans proper and later Cyprus and the Trebizond state. Conversions started then and later with the passing of time accelerated in the 17th and 18th century, depending on the region and its sociopolitical circumstances. For example some number of the local elites where ones to convert first to preserve land and privileges in the late medieval period. Also if you see in my comments i was answering Place Clichy too alongside you. Regarding the compatriots matter, its Dr Peter Mackridge who states that. This is the same Mackridge who did fieldwork amongst Pontic Grecophone Muslim communities in the 1980s. You say there are other sources, if there are them bring them here (like i have said to other editors in times past, i will not do all the work). Make sure their peer reviewed and academic, See WP:reliable. This article needs more work done. Ethnic cultural heritage (regarding Romeyka language and so on) is Greek. No one denies that. But these Grecophone Muslim communities on a whole repeatedly feel and self identify as Turk as being their identity. You say there are individual cases to the contrary and i don't doubt that for one second, but you need to find sources that cite this. There are people from Grecophone Muslim communities that found this article offensive and wanted to even get rid of many references. On their talkpages i had to have lengthy discussions a long while ago about not doing that. There are conflicting views in the Grecophone Muslim communities (whether a minority or majority view/s). I prefer to go by peer reviewed scholarship, so as to avoid any quagmires and go by information as outlined by peer reviewed scholarship. So should all editors.Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is quite sad, the generalizing statements you make like "That's how it is with them." Who exactly do you think you are, to be entitled to decide for other people what their identity is? NeoRetro (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grecophone Muslims. Very easy. The scholarship time and time again shows they identify as Turks. I go by that. Its all cited in the article in case there is any further queries. Same with say for example the Arvanites, they are Albanian speaking (well sometime back) Greeks. And that's how it is with them too as per the scholarship. I have always based myself by the scholarship. If anyone has an issue with that, email the scholars who do the research and discuss it with them.Resnjari (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Muslims Helens[edit]

Don't we think it is vandalism that many were erased by saying "partially greek no need to add to list" on wikipedia which is written by turks. Manaviko (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by your comment regarding "vandalism". This article has barely even been touched by Turkish editors, though i welcome their contribution which is more than overdue. As for for myself i am of Albanian heritage. The article is based on peer reviewed material. Grecophone Muslims identify as Turks and not Hellenes just to clarify.Resnjari (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, how do you judge who is Turkish and who is not? Why are you in the business of judging other peoples ethnic background? Secondly, could you stop speaking in general terms about me and my family? You don't know us, so don't include us in your generalizations. NeoRetro (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not talk in generalized terms. Scholars who have done fieldwork amongst Grecophone Muslim communities have stated in their peer reviewed works that these people state to them that they feel and identify as Turkish. Your experience of the matter is different to that outlined in peer reviewed literature, however to place something in this article that refers to Grecophone Muslims feeling Greek, you would need sources that meet wp:reliable and wp:secondary. Absent that, the rest is wp:original research. Otherwise if do things outside that, then all sorts of things can be placed in a article. Wikipedia has guidelines and polices, please refer to them as i have.Resnjari (talk) 10:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it extremely childish that you keep referring to rules. This is the talk page. You are generalizing and I find it offensive towards me personally.NeoRetro (talk) 10:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear: I never deleted anything you added to the page, and nowhere did I imply that we should add data that is not sourced. That you indicate otherwise dilutes the discussion. I merely oppose generalizing terms that you use regularly.NeoRetro (talk) 10:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is nothing "childish" or offensive. Wikipedia guidelines and its policies which are basically its rules states that content must be based on peer reviewed literature. See: wp:secondary. Grecophone Muslim communities in Turkey identify as Turks and Muslims. You are yet to present peer reviewed sources that contradict this. Your personal experience is your experience. However Wikipedia does not function on wp:original. If you ever encounter one of those scholars in your community undertaking fieldwork tell them that there are some few who don't identify as Turks. Until that view is expressed in scholarship, i go by what is written in it and not personal sentiment about what is right or not regarding what a community identifies themselves as.Resnjari (talk) 10:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never suggested otherwise. I just oppose generalizing. I never said Muslim Greeks identify as Greeks (a modern nationalistic term that even some elderly Christian Pontic Greeks don't use to describe themselves). The literature you refer to also doesn't generalize the way you do. For instance, they refer to the differences in how Greek-speakers present themselves in-group, and towards the majority population. I have even given you a few examples of people that are open about their identity. There is a leftist Turkish pro-Pontic Facebook page with tens of thousands of likes. I'm not asking you to rewrite history, I'm just pointing out the fact that you are generalizing based on very thin claims. Instead of saying '[all] Muslim [Pontic] Greeks feel Turks' [period], you should say: "Researchers have found that most Muslim Greek speakers identify primarily as Turks, however, the number of respondents is usually limited to a handful of people."NeoRetro (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Facebook is not wp:reliable. Otherwise i, or anyone could use it as a "source" for multiple articles etc. I have never said that Grecophone Muslims emerged out of a Orthodox Greek speaking populace. Same for most Turks too. However as the peer reviewed sources state for contemporary times, over and over again, respondents from the communities have overwhelmingly stated that view to these researchers. To say that these communities call themselves "Greeks" without providing wp:reliable and wp:secondary is wp:POV. I go by what peer reviewed sources have stated, not what i "should" say. For this to be in the article > "however, the number of respondents is usually limited to a handful of people." you need wp:reliable sources.Resnjari (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are you talking about?? The number of respondents is given in the research that is cited itself. Have you read the sources on this page? Also, again, why do you keep implying that I would want the article to say they are Greek?? Where did you read this??? Also, I never suggested Facebook is a reliable source. I don't know how you got that idea. I have been on Wikipedia for 7 years, I know how it works...NeoRetro (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You say you have given me examples on how people represent themselves, based on what you say. These researchers have spent time traversing those villages. Mackridge, Schreiber, Hakan and Bortone keep getting the same replies from Grecophone Pontic Muslims. There is no contradiction in this. As for "Also, again, why do you keep implying that I would want the article to say they are Greek?? Where did you read this??? Also, I never suggested Facebook is a reliable source." That you brought up Facebook to make your point is saying something toward that. Otherwise why bring it up. I can make a similar case for Arvanites etc. Some few individuals are ok with identifying as ALbanian. Agian that still is wp:original. As for the sources in the article, yes i am aware of them as i placed a great deal of them there with inlines. Also for having this, "however, the number of respondents is usually limited to a handful of people." if you feel that is the case and have identified that in all those scholars, find the page and inline for that. Bortone gives a general overview of what the Grecophone Pontic community feels which contradicts your few respondents answer. So you say you know how Wikipedia works, then find wp:reliable sources that affirm your position. I will not do work for other people.Resnjari (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never asked you to do so. I just ask you to stop generalizing. And I don't know why you keep discussing Albania. I don't care about that at all. "That you brought up Facebook to make your point is saying something toward that." No it is not. "These researchers have spent time traversing those villages." So have I, that doesn't mean anything. NeoRetro (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"So have I, that doesn't mean anything." Yes it does. They are scholars who get their research published in peer reviewed publications and meet wp:reliable. All your giving me is wp:original research. As for Albania, i cite that because its similar, there are some few individuals who claim Albanian heritage amongst the Arvanites(i.e.the late Aristidhis Kolias etc),, bu that in no way speaks for the whole group as peer reviewed research states otherwise. Same with here. Find sources that sya there are people within the Grecophone Muslim community who have different ways of viewing thier identity etc.Resnjari (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reasons For Conversion[edit]

I dispute the source used for this statement: "or simply because of the corruption of the Greek clergy.[13]" The source comes from The preaching of Islam: a history of the propagation of the Muslim faith by Thomas Walker Arnold published in 1896. Wikipedia strongly encourages the use of secondary sources especially for controversial, or strong claims. The claim in question is strong, and the source is biased for two reasons, which is enabled by the fact that it was published 120 years ago. A. This is a field this author brought about, this is one important to him, as such it is important for him to stress the importance of it, especially in regards to other ideologies of the times. B. Biases in the west against Eastern Orthodoxy. If a modern peer reviewed source can't be found, I'm going to nix it. I've read the cited pages, and Thomas Walker Arnold merely states stuff, the best provided is often the name of some person who he got the information from, in this way his history is very much like that of Herodotus, and makes this history more bare in line with a primary source, as opposed to a secondary. Sorry if this explanation is convoluted, it's 0:17 where I live, and I'm quite tired. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]

The problem with Arnold is not that he is a secondary source, but that he is very, very outdated. 1896 is a different world. I agree that unless a modern source can be found this should go. Athenean (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need more stuff though on conversions, especially in relation to the Orthodox church and its flock and what their various conditions of the various dioceses that lead to religious conversion. Apart from external Ottoman factors and relations with the wider Muslim populations (peaceful/violent and so on) that propelled conversion, were there internal breakdowns within the church structures that also gave way to those conversions in certain regions and points in time? If any of you or other editors have expertise (and access of knowledge of the scholarship) in those matters, do add. The article is lacking much about that. I have done a lot to update the current state regarding these communties. However more improvement is needed. Best.Resnjari (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Problem is stuff like that isn't always so easy to dig up on Library databases, and google scholar. You would be amazed at the amount of total BS on Google Scholar, ~40k hits on scholarly works about Ulysses by Joyce, which makes finding sources a pain especially since I don't know the scholars who specialize in it, and theorize that most of the scholarly work is in either Greek or Turkish. While your point is understood about how the Greek Orthodox Church dealt with external changes, I think something that's important to bear in mind is the fates of the rest of the churches that came under moslem domination. The numbers for all of them in the end eek out to relatively similar amounts, until that genocides started, ie Coptic Orthodox Church, the Church of the East, the Assyrian Orthodox Church, etc. I think a major factor was the economic impacts of remaining Christian, ie the Jiyza tax, as well as constant discrimination, and sporadic pogroms of non-moslems. This realm is a little past my forte which is the Byzantine Empire, but something else that certainly can be worked with is personal connection to God, my understanding is the earlier Orthodox Church stressed the need of a Priest as an intercessor, economic impacts, and also the fact that islam was originally viewed as being a off shoot of Christianity, moslems believe in Jesus, the koran is a somewhat hellenistic work, it recites much of the history from the Bible, and has a lot of points in common, another realm to explore is the economic road presented by Islam of raiding the land of war, which was influential for many converts, to raid Christian lands would enrich the moslems, and if they should be killed they were promised 72 virgins in paradise, where as the Orthodox Church took a much stricter look at killing and forbade it, even for Christian soldiers against moslems, denying them Communion for 2 years afterward as a time of repentance. The Byzantine Emperor Leo the Wise talks about this quite abit, and how that influences Byzantine military strategy, his works should be free online. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]
The issues for conversion to which you made reference too relate mainly when Anatolia was going from a Orthodox and Greek speaking Byzantine ruled area into a Muslim and Turkish Ottoman ruled area leaving Greek speaking pockets of both Muslim and Orthodox religions on the coast and their nearby hinterlands. That process relates to the 11tth-14th centuries which resulted in the emergence of today's Anatolia's Turkish population. My comments about needing for this article to address the conversion matter was in relation to a post 1453 environment in which these communities Orthodox Greek speaking fore-bearers and thereafter converted to Islam and acquired some form of Turkish identity while still retaining cultural elements dating from the Byzantine era (namely Greek language and refering to the language as Romeika). As this article covers different communities and geographies it is also somewhat more complicated in a pre-1453 context. Prior to that, the changes taking place in Anatolia where more uniform due to the Beylik system and the rise of Bektashi syncretic Islam which had its influence on the population alongside other factors that you cite. For a extensive study which for the most past still holds in scholarship, see: Speros Vryonis (1971). The decline of medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor: and the process of Islamization from the eleventh through the fifteenth century. University of California Press. There are a few different issues for the reason for conversion of the post-1453 communities. Conversion in Ioannina and Konitsa was done by the local Greek speaking Orthodox elite who became part of the timar class. In Crete after the conquest was done more or less conversion was voluntarily and the Vallades only converted in the late 18th and early 18th century and were mainly Bektashi's. In Pontus conversion points to it being forced. This though is from the literature which i used for the article though did not cite for the conversion matter though. I wanted something more detailed and am still after something more detailed. Regarding the issues of virgins, though i have come across in the material about the ghazi warrior culture and wars done for conquering the area of Anatolia for Islam, nothing about the virgins matter. Also about the Quran being a somewhat hellenistic work is somewhat problematic. On studies on conversion, the Quran derived a large proportion of its conceptual framework from the Judaeo-Christian tradition. The very text proclaims itself to be a successor to the Jewish and Christian texts. That also had a bearing from those like the Bektashi when they went around preaching to the common folk. If you come across stuff, do add. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greek Muslims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greek Muslims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greek and/or its dialects[edit]

Sizable numbers of Grecophone Muslims, not merely the elders but even young people, have retained a knowledge of Greek and/or its dialects, such as Cretan and Pontic Greek.

This phrasing implies that there is a Greek language distinct from its dialects. That is an unfashionable prescriptivism; most linguists would say Standard Greek is one dialect among many.

That aside, "and/or" also implies that many of these people speak both the standard language and regional dialect(s). Is that true?

I would replace "Greek and/or its dialects" with "Greek dialects". —Tamfang (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good observation Tamfang. I corrected it. Demetrios1993 (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox Image[edit]

@Βατο: The original title of the painting is "Jeunes Grecs à la mosquée", which translates as "Young Greeks at the Mosque". "Arnaoutes en prière" is not even an original alternative title. It was first mentioned by Luan Rama, in his 2016 publication "Les Albanais de Léon Gérôme/Shqiptarët e Léon Gérôme". Aside of him, all of the Museums and early publications that i checked present it with the original title:

@Demetrios1993: that title does not describe the subject of the painting, because J. L. Gérôme depicted the same Arnautes in several works: albanianart.net by Robert Elsie. The inaccuracy is the same as the painting titled Markos Botzaris, which does not depict Markos Botsaris, but an Arnaut chief, see Commons:File:Jean-Léon Gérôme – Marco Bozzari, 1874.jpg and Commons:File:Prayer in the Mosque.jpg. – Βατο (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what? This is ridiculous. Paintings are not meant to be "accurate", they are paintings, not scientific works. And can you for once stop trying to have your way through edit-warring and try to reach a consensus in the talkage? The "my way or the highway" approach is getting really old. Khirurg (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Khirurg: the stable version is without it, hence you have to reach consensus before reverting. A painting that depicts an unrelated subject can't be included as the image of the Infobox of this article. Your statement Paintings are not meant to be "accurate", they are paintings, not scientific works is inappropriate here because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and editors should include accurate content. – Βατο (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely agree with Bato's statement. Having a painting which depicts Albanians in an article that is supposed to be about Greeks is not logical, the previous picture was better suited for the topic. Ahmet Q. (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that we are even arguing about something so trivial is ridiculous. The artist doesn't present Arnauts in the respective painting, he presents Greeks, hence the title. He was very well aware that Arnauts and Greeks were two distinct people, so his choice of a title is certainly not based on ignorance or mistake. And no, the artist hasn't painted these two Greek youths that are depicted praying anywhere else. The original title of the work and the one that continues to be used up to this day uninterruptedly is Jeunes Grecs à la mosquée/Young Greeks in the Mosque, not Arnaoutes en prière as it was falsely claimed in the rv reason. And even Arnaoutes en prière is an alternative title that was created subjectively by the Albanian diplomat Luan Rama in 2016, and as far as i am aware used only by him; something that also relates to WP:WEIGHT. And that isn't the only painting that Rama associates with Albanians from a subjective point of view. Anyway, for the sake of ending this trivial discussion i am returning it to the stable version. Demetrios1993 (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of partial origin section[edit]

This page deals with Greek Muslims, who are of Greek origin. The section on partial Greek origin seems ridiculous, some of these figures are included because they had a grandfather or some ancestor that was Greek. This page should only include clearly Greek Muslims, not people who have some Greek ancestry because of one parent or grandparent or great-grandparent. Unless Greek identity was somehow relevant to them (such as being raised as a Greek), it should be removed. Veritaes Unam (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree with this proposition. Descent from a specific ethnic group can be both partial and full, and the title of this section is accurate and NPOV, namely "Muslims of partial Greek descent (non-conversions)". Furthermore, even if the descent from a certain ethnic group is partial, it is important enough and is included in the articles of the respective individuals as well. Last, the claim that only a grandparent or some other distant ancestor of theirs was Greek is false. By doing a quick scan i saw that mostly their mothers were Greek. Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the page is about “Greek Muslims.” Meaning that they have an ethnic identity as Greek, or speak Greek, or were raised as Greek, not just having one parent that is Greek. That isn’t enough to define them as “Greek Muslims” in a meaningful sense Veritaes Unam (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per the lede of this article, Greek Muslims, also known as Grecophone Muslims, are Muslims of Greek ethnic origin whose adoption of Islam (and often the Turkish language and identity) dates to the period of Ottoman rule in the southern Balkans., thus it doesn't only pertain to having been raised as Greek (and later converting) or speaking the Greek language or having a Greek ethnic identity (consciousness). Demetrios1993 (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having thought about it, you’re right, for some reason it seemed strange at first, but you’ve explained your reasoning well. Thank you for responding! Veritaes Unam (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

east thrace 1914, population exchange 1923 and istanbul pogrom 1955[edit]

The article misses the Greeks who forcibly converted to Islam in 1914, 1923 and 1955 to stay in Turkey and not expelled to Greece. Marillesa (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories