Talk:Greek Muslims/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Greek Muslims" is the most NPOV title

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)