Talk:Karamanlides

Comments

Not that I am claiming anything about anyone's ethnicity but don't you think it is a little bizarre that the argument for Greek origins of Karamlids is just the impossibility of mass conversions among muslims into christianity due to sharia law? How about people of ethnic turkish origin who served Byzantine empire long before Turks came to anatolia or even adopted Islam? And why is it an explanation that they started to use turkish language because they were isolated from other greeks? Although not as many as they were in western Turkey, there were ethnic greeks speaking greek language all over the region that Karamanlids lived. What kind of an isolation is that? Also why other regional groups like Pontus Greeks did not change their language? And how come Karamanlids's using greek alphabet is any evidence of their origin? Turks were using the Arabic alphabet but they have nothing to do with Arabs in terms of ethnic origin. In medieval times, a language was written mostly either because it was the language of the government and the court or the language of religious practices. No wonder christian people used the alphabet of their religious practices to write their own language, when their turkish neighbors did the same with the arabic alphabet. I really have no desire to step on some red blooded nationalistic toes but this article seems to be trying too hard to convince us one way with very unbelievable or irrelevant pieces of evidence. Can we see get a more balanced article. A clean up of irrelevant argumentative material will also do.70.175.28.246 10:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

An interesting site about them can be found here. [1] .65.756.46.532 10:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Greek Alphabet

The Karamanlides were Greeks who were Greek-Orthodox and used the Greek alphabet but spoke Turkish because of their isolation from other Greeks in Anatolia. They are not just from a certain area. The article says nothing about the fact they used the Greek alphabet.--Waterfall999 12:57, 3 August 2007 (UT

I have no time for Wikipedia....but someone may want to follow up on this:http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=133463Gospe (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

and this too... http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=oldest-karamanli-misses-home-2009-08-03 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.13.75 (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

strange origin

name is Turkic, language is Turkic, ethnicity under discussion( DNA analysis may help though) One thing is more strange Karamanli Tribe came to that region long before Seljuks(probably due to uninhabbited large(larger than belgium) area for their herds) became one of the major powers during mongol invasion, The first pan-turkic decleration was made by them( an unrest against Arabic- persian influence), large portion driven to rumelia after final ottoman conquest, formed their own church after WW1 blaming greek orthodox church is an ethnic organization supporting terror tides in anatolia.

these show they may be Turkish, anyway a big DNA study may reveal the truth, but i guess the results will be fearsome, like much of the population in Turkey will have Greek(not only hellenic, the hellenised anatolians during Byzantine) ancestors probably more than orthodox greeks, as well as the population of greece will show similar Turkic ancestry ratios, wouldnt that be funny :) dont know what the ultra-nationalists will say in both sides of the sea then :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.244.184.162 (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the intrusion, but there has been no settlement of any Turkish tribes in Asia Minor BEFORE the Manzikert battle. The sources say nothing like that. The Byzantines had earlier settled some Slavs in the Thema of Opsikion (North-West Asia Minor). But they were so few that any trace of them vanished in a sea of Greeks and hellenized Anatolian people, existing in Asia Minor for millenia. These Anatolian people (Lydians, Carians, Phrygians etc) were of Indo-European stock, as the far earlier Hittites, and had nothing to do with the Turcic tribes of the 11th century. Greeks had colonized the coasts intensely, but not the interior of Asia Minor.

As for the similarity between Greeks and Turks, Arnold Toynbee in his massive A STUDY OF HISTORY has anticipated any DNA research : According to him, no distinction can be made today between the two nations. I think that he drew his conclusions mainly from the Smyrna area, where he was war correspondant. For that area, he was absolutely right. Not so for the interior of Asia Minor (after Sivas), I venture say. PS: I am a Greek, but far away from ultra-nationalists ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.155.2 (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no "pan-turkism" before 19th century. Karaman principality declared Turkish as official language in order to force mostly persian speaking civil officers able to communicate with turkish speaking tax payers.

There was also no "forced turkification". Nationalism is a modern ideology. For 13th century, one could only speak of forced islamization which was obviously not the case of karamanli people.

There are ottoman reports of some aegean regions which clearly state that some greek communities compeletly forgotten greek and can only speak turkish while retaining orthodox faith. Those people were clearly greeks whom culturally and linguistically assimilated into neighbouring turkish culture. If they weren't keeping their religious identity, probably their assimilation would be complete.

There are also some ottoman tax records of christian karaman villages. The person names on some tax records was archaic turkic names which already replaced by muslim names in muslim turkish population of the time. Those kind of original turkish names was common in some christian villages while orthodox villagers of some other areas using common greek christian names even they can't speak greek anymore.

So it seems some of the Turkish population converted to christianity and some of the greek population assimilated linguistically while retaining christianity.

There was turkic peoples of balkans like uzes and pecheneks which some of them entered the service of byzantian basileus, converted to christianity and placed in anatolia as whole tribes for military duties. There was uz, pechenek and kipchak turks in byzantine army during menzikert. And yes, some of them entered anatolia before the seljuk turks. We know seljuks and turkic byzantine soldiers able to communicate with each other because night before the battle, seljuks persuade some of them to switch sides.

In later times, some turkish princes escaped from dynastic struggles and seek refuge in byzantine lands. Some of them and their tribes converted to christianity. And of course there are example of orthodox, turkish gagauz people from balkans.

Not all the turks migrating to anatolia was muslims. There was adherents of manichean, nestorian christian, even buddhist faiths among them. Chigil and yaghma tribes of jedisu area were clear examples, whom escaped to anatolia from mongol invasions. While some of them converted to islam, there is a possibility of some of them being converted to neighbouring christian villagers' religion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.86.31 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 24 July 2010

Karamanlides picture?

A wedding ceremony at Malakopi (Cappadocia, now Derinkuyu) ca. 1910

The picture in the infobox showing a wedding at Malakopi (also slept Melegobi and Melegobia) in Cappadocia is supposedly of Karamanlides (Turkish speakers), the village of Malakopi was in fact thoroughly Greek speaking and therefore the picture cannot be of Karamanlides. Author John Robert Sitlington Sterrett travelled through Malakopi in 1884 and noted: "Melegobi is a large and flourishing village, inhabited almost exclusively by Greek-speaking Greeks. The Greeks are numerous all through the western part of Cappadocia, and generally cling to their language with great tenacity, a fact worthy of notice, inasmuch as the Greeks in other parts of Asia Minor speak only Turkish. Instances of Greek-speaking towns are Niğde, Gelvere, Melegobi (Μελοκοπια), and Ortakieui in Soghanli Deressi." I removed the picture until further notice.

It sure looks like these people are ethnic turks. My subjective measure of turkic ethnicity in western Anatolia is the shape of the chin. Their chin shape fits the template. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

They do not look Turkic at all. Turkic people have an east-asian influence in their phenotype which this people clearly lack phenotypically. 37.6.42.106 (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Zorlusert (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

edits by 88.253.251.168

Hello all. I hope I was not overly bold for undoing all these edits. I believe they are a mix of original research and non-english sources of unknown quality. Additionally, since that view deviates from the academic consensus (see original references), they should be only quoted as an alternative one.--Dipa1965 (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Some scholar information on Karamanli literature can be found here:

• Anna Frangoudaki, Caglar Keyder, Ways to Modernity in Greece and Turkey: Encounters with Europe, 1850 -1950, I.B.Tauris, 2007
• Evangelia Balta, Matthias Kappler (editors), Cries and Whispers in Karamanlidika Books: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Karamanlidika Studies, Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, 2010

--Dipa1965 (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible origin

I have no detailed source on the origin of Karamanlis. But there may be two other possible origins besides what is stated in the article. During the Arabic Empire Arabs formed a buffer area in the Byzantine frontier called Al-'Awasim. Awasim people were mostly Turks. When Byzantines recaptured south Turkey most of Awasim people became Byzantine subjects. They probably converted to Christianity. They may be the anchestors of Karamanli people (But Awasim region was slightly south of Karamanli region) Another possibility is the tribes of the 13th century (after Manzikert) Although initial Seljuk population was Muslim, after the fall of the Great Seljuks, non Muslim Turks also migrated to Anatolia. They might have converted to Chriatianity.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The first one is definitely off; the Muslim population of the Awasim was mostly expelled during the Byzantine conquest, and the area was heavily resettled with Armenians and/or Syriac Christians, both non-Orthodox. The Karamanlides are exclusively attested in Cappadocia, which remained in Byzantine hands throughout the early Middle Ages and was heavily hellenized (albeit there too with an admixture of Armenians after the 9th century). On the second, given the fact that Turks who converted to Christianity did so only under Byzantine service, and that the common pattern in post-Seljuk Anatolia was rather the reverse (i.e. Christians becoming Muslims), it is doubtful to say the least. The theory about the Christianized Turks is IMO somewhat credible only for a timeframe of the late 11th and 12th centuries, in the context of Komnenian efforts to reconquer Anatolia, but again it is unclear when exactly this might have been possible. Personally, I think it flies against probability as well as available evidence. It is no coincidence, I think, that in the same region a Greek-speaking Christian population also survived, indicating that for some reason full linguistic and religious assimilation was less prevalent in Cappadocia. IMO, per Occam's razor, the linguistic assimilation during the long centuries of Turkish rule is more probable than some complex settlement scheme of Christianized Turks in an area that the Byzantines practically lost in the decade after Manzikert and never regained. Constantine ✍ 00:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know much about Awasim. But I object to your definitely off comment. I know in Turkey there are settlements named Eskiyörük (Old yoruk) referring to Awasim people. They are Muslim. But who knows about possible converts ? As for the second point, in the 11th and early 12th centuries Great Seljuk authorities banned any non-Muslim passage from Turkestan. But when the empire disintegrated, Non Muslims as well as the Muslims were able to migrate to Anatolia especially during the expansion of the Mongol Empire. Although Muslim to Christian conversion was strictly banned there was no such ban for the Tengrist people. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, we are discussing our own views here on what may or may not plausibly have been the origin of these people. We don't have to agree 100% :). However, I am intrigued by your statement regarding the Yoruks. I am not aware of any connection between them and the Awasim. Can you elaborate? Constantine ✍ 08:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

There is several lines about possible Bulgarian origin, but not a single proper citation or quote. Should be deleted.--93.152.214.121 (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree.--Dipa1965 (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Here are some scholarly sources that might help the page, if anyone cares : [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] Cheers. --Yalens (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Reply to edit summaries of User:Խաղաղություն

Baydar (2016) was summarized accurately, and referenced accordingly. You can go and check every single account that was mentioned when you find some free time. More references can be found and included if you have an issue; although, you are the one who introduced Baydar (2016) in the article. The main thing i excluded from Baydar (2016) were the Greek and Turkish accounts, because i thought that the foreign accounts would provide a more unbiased picture, and we already include a summary of the Greek and Turkish views with the following, which is based on Clogg (1968):

Greek scholars incline to the view that the Karamanlides were of Greek descent and adopted Turkish as their vernacular, either by force or as a result of their isolation from the Greek-speaking Orthodox Christians of the coastal regions. Turkish scholars regard them as the descendants of Turks who had migrated to Byzantine territories before the conquest or had served as mercenaries in the Byzantine armies and who had adopted the religion but not the language of their new rulers.

Furthermore, there is nothing nationalist or disruptive about my reverts. Everything that you add has to be verifiable, yet you keep adding a claim that isn't supported by the two references that you used. Specifically you included the following:

There is historical accounts of settled Turks living in Byzantine Anatolia converting to Christianity, Karamanlides are also often thought to be the Christian Turkish converts who maintained their religion after Byzantines were defeated.

And you referenced the two following pages, that don't support the above.

• Page 223 by Shukurov (2016)
• Page 896 by Aktürk (2009)

Regardless, what you are trying to add, is more or less the same as the Turkish view mentioned in the first quote above, and already included in the article. Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Reply to edit summary of User:Crasyy

Crasyy, this has nothing to do with the disputed ultimate origin of the Karamanlides; it is simply an alternative term found in reliable scholarly literature. Karamanlides are not a "fossilized" population of the past; they still exist, hence the use of the present tense in the lead, and my recent clarification that they are a traditionally Turkish-speaking population. There is nothing controversial about this alternative term, since Karamanlides are today part of Greek society, and have been well integrated for decades; they are essentially a Greek subgroup, despite their disputed ultimate origin.

Last, the article doesn't include the quote, "[t]here are two ideas about Karamanlis origin", but "[t]he origins of the Karamanlides have long been disputed, there being two basic theories on the subject." Keep in mind that quotations should be precise, unless we are dealing with scare quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demetrios1993 (talk • contribs) 1:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The origins of the Karamanlides have long been disputed, there being two basic theories on the subject. — That's what written in article. We don't talk about if they are part of Greek society or they aren't part of it. Lead cannot be different from body of article. Also we also have strong support for their origin being "Turkish" that you deleted in past as I saw. I recommend you to don't change stable version 'till we reach consensus. Thanks. Crasyy (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

The lede should present names widely used in the literature. Since many sources refer to them as Karamanli Greeks, there is no issue with that being in the lede. Khirurg (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The stable version is the one that people keep reverting your edit to @Crasyy. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:STABLE this version is the STABLE one. Discuss started after that one. @Hey man im josh: Crasyy (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

Yeah no other comment again. Because you just got what you want. I will wait three days to reply and I will use silent consensus. There are also a lot of sources state them as "Orthodox Turks" or "Karamanli Turks" but you deleted it multiple times for not reaching consensus. Keep going. Article says "origins disputed" and obviously you cannot write it to lead. Crasyy (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

Crasyy, yes, i know what the actual quote in the article says; i am the one who corrected you above. Furthermore, you continue to confuse what § Origins says, with what is simply a significant alternative term for the Karamanlides, found in English-language literature. This alternative term has nothing to do with their disputed ultimate origin, which can, and should in fact be summarized in the lead; per MOS:LEAD.

Have you even read WP:SILENCE? Consensus can be presumed until disagreement becomes evident; typically through reverting, editing, or stating disagreement on a relevant talk page. In this case, multiple editors have expressed their disapproval of removing this content; both via their edit summaries and via their comments in the talk page. They are not obliged to reiterate their objection or arguments because you failed to understand them; competence is required.

I deleted information about their Turkish origin? What are you talking about? Does this have to do with my reply to the edit summaries of User:Խաղաղություն, from about half a year ago? Also, the "stable version" you pointed above includes the alternative term. The current version is in line with it; unless you are suggesting to remove all the other subsequent improvements that were made since then, even though no objection was raised concerning them. Demetrios1993 (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"They are not obliged to reiterate their objection or arguments because you failed to understand them; competence is required." Yes they have to explain what they did when they change something without consensus. And your only reply was "sourced info" some user added "Karamanli Turks" and you deleted it without an explain. Crasyy (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

References

Reply to edit summary of User:Khirurg

@Khirurg Please state the reason when making a change. It is not right to commit vandalism in this way. Thanks. Historyofarmenia01 (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

Read WP:VANDALISM before accusing editors of "commit[ing] vandalism". ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't blame him, but this looks like vandalism. On 31 October, review the changes made. We can discuss the sources instead of undoing the content, thanks. Historyofarmenia01 (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

Yes, however you should've started this discussion after you were reverted the IP, instead of just reverting again which is outlined in WP:BRD. However you have started a discussion before reverting again after you made your edit a 2nd time which means you have not violated WP:3RR yet which is good. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm waiting for your reply @Khirurg Historyofarmenia01 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

Retrieval request

This version of the page does not contain enough sources. Yesterday, user @Khirurg reverted my content, but did not give a reason. I think this is intended for vandalism. I request that the page be restored to this state. Historyofarmenia01 (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

@Blaze Wolf Historyofarmenia01 (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

@Historyofarmenia01: Wait for Khirurg to respond. If they don't then mention it to them on their talk page. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

In fact, this article is extremely misspelled. At first it says Greeks from Karaman, but in the title of origins he mentions that there are 2 theories. And if you have analysed the article you will see that the sources are missing. I tried to talk to Khirurg, but he was rude to me. Historyofarmenia01 (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

Then I suggest you go to WP:Dispute resolution. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Please review. You will see that although he is active, he does not answer, does not come to the discussion. WP:NPOV You'll see I was right. Historyofarmenia01 (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

I do not care who was and wasn't right. I suggest you request a third opinion on this as I do not wish to get that involved. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't consider Historyofarmenia01's additions an improvement. Without any explanation they removed the mention of "Karamanli Greeks" (supported by citations such as Routledge) and then goes on to add "Karamanli Turks", apparently supported by tons of obscure, seemingly cherry picked citations. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It is a bit strange to call academic sources obscure. Historyofarmenia01 (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

At first it says Greeks from Karaman, but in the title of origins he mentions that there are 2 theories. If the page is not vandalised, I will add more sources to the article. I think that instead of only Turks or only Greeks, we should add both. Historyofarmenia01 (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

Your version has a number of issues:

• You removed an actual significant alternative term such as Karamanlis, and replaced it with the Turkish variant Karamanlılar; it was actually duplicated, since it is already included in the parenthesis of the first sentence, alongside the Greek variant Καραμανλήδες.
• You removed the easily verifiable Greek Orthodox affiliation of the Karamanlides, and replaced it with Turk-Orthodox.
• You removed the referenced alternative term Karamanli Greeks, and added Karamanli Turks. First of all, links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title or its alternative names, located at the first sentence of a lead; per MOS:BOLDLINK. Second, it should be noted that out of the six references you included in order to support the term, five are non-English language sources, and not all include a small English translation of their non-English abstract or title; only Öger (2012) is an actual English-language source, and uses the alternative terms Karamanli Orthodox Turks (11 times), Karamanli Orthodox (four times), Orthodox Karamanli Turks (two times), Karamanli Orthodox Christians (one time), and Karamanli Orthodox Emigrants (one time). Regardless, you have not substantiated the claim that any of these terms have a significant presence in English-language literature; and even if you somehow did, it would only make us rename the § Etymology section into § Names, and include the etymology and all alternative names under it; read MOS:ALTNAME. In contrast, we have actual English-language sources, such as Ilıcak & Varjabedian (2021), who indicate that Karamanli Greeks is a significant alternative term used in English-language literature. This can be supported with numerous additional English-language sources; but, we also have to consider WP:CITEKILL.
• For the additions under § Language, to be honest, i had limited time and wasn't able to verify the content. But even if valid, it is problematic in terms of WP:NPOV and WP:OFFTOPIC. For one, it implies that the population had a Turkic ultimate origin, while you yourself acknowledged the fact of their disputed origin above. Second, what do the "Rum people of Antalya", who supposedly "did not know a single letter of Greek", have to do with the Karamanlides?

Last, do you happen to be associated in any way with User:Crasyy, or with any other account for that matter? Demetrios1993 (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

As I said before, this article is extremely wrongly written. At first it says Karamanli Greeks, but in the origins heading it mentions that there are 2 theories. It makes more sense to edit this version instead of undoing my edits. Because most of the page is unsourced. The sources in the stable version are old and unreliable.

Let's look at source 3 for example:

"Here the term "Christians" should be read as referring specifically to the remaining Armenian groups and perhaps Karamanli Greeks in the interior of Anatolia, who had not yet been displaced."

This source is just a theory.

Let's look at the 2nd source:

"In the bilingual and bi-musical song anthologies published by the Karamanli Greeks of Anatolia, Turkish melodies were transcribed in the reformed Byzantine notation, and Turkish texts were printed in Greek script."

They speak "Turkish" and write with the Greek alphabet. This does not prove that they are Greeks.

And there are no sources supporting the etymology and language sources.

The page I have edited is much richer in resources. It would make more sense to revert the page to this version. If you think that the Karamanids were not Turkish, you can edit the page when it is reverted.

Finally, accusing me of being connected to someone is against that. WP:NOPA Historyofarmenia01 (talk) 09:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

References

Why is there even a question about their origin

1)Most travelers identified them as Greeks. 2)We have many karamanlides authors identify themselves as Greeks. 3)They weren't the only Turkish speaking Greek, western Pontic Greeks and a minority Western Anatolians Greeks also only spoke Turkish. 4)There are many Armenians and Jews in Anatolia that also only spoke Turkish and wrote Turkish in their alphabet. 5)There is no karamanli Greek identifying as Turkic. If they had Turkic ancestry surely there would be a memory of it among themselves. 6)We have byzantine and venetian sources confirming Greeks in Anatolia speaking fluent Turkish in 12th centrury. 7)We have DNA samples of Central Anatolian Greeks and Cappadocian Greeks an none of them score any Turkic ancestry. 8)The theory that descend from Turcopoles makes no sense because Turkic mercenaries where never numerous to form such a large community nor of political high status to change the language from Greek to Turkish in the region. Darkofolk (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you; the majority of evidence suggests that they were Greeks. The only reason these unfounded Turkic origin theories, proposed by Turkish scholars, gain attention is because of the language they spoke. However, it's crucial to note that speaking Turkish, especially in Anatolia where various ethnic groups coexisted (such as Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Kurds, etc.), doesn't automatically imply Turkic ethnicity. Throughout history, it has been common for conquered peoples to adopt the language of their conquerors. Take, for instance, the Hungarians. Despite the linguistic assimilation of groups like the Karamanlides, there are substantial historical records indicating their Greek identity and consciousness, contrasting with the Hungarians who maintained their distinct identity despite adopting the dominant language 37.6.40.241 (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Article needs improving

This article presents two theories, but it becomes apparent that the weight of historical evidence overwhelmingly supports the first theory. While mentioning the second theory can add context, it might be beneficial to clarify its limited relevance or provide a note emphasizing the dominance of the first theory based on historical sources. This clarification would prevent confusion and ensure readers understand the prevailing viewpoint. 37.6.40.241 (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The article is neutrally written; I don't see any undue weight being given to the hypothesis that concerns a Turkic ancestry. Your proposal requires a reliable secondary source supporting it; right now it appears to be based on improper editorial synthesis. Demetrios1993 (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I request the page to be fixed by the mod.

I request the page to be fixed by the mod. Because a user from Athens killed the page just because he didn't like the source. 2A02:4E0:2D36:AA7:67EB:82E1:2C67:32A4 (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Besides the clearly disruptive behavior of the Greek IP, your edits are also problematic. Neither of the two sources you added (plus one duplicate) are in English; nor do they establish "Karamanlı Turks" as a significant alternative name; nor do they actually use that term once; see MOS:ALTNAME. Furthermore, the Turkish variant Karamanlılar, which is what one of the two non-English sources is using, is already included in the lead sentence. Similar changes, by a now indefinitely blocked sockpuppet who likewise misunderstood the purpose of significant alternative names, were discussed in this talk page. The two sources you added, only concern the disputed origin of the Karamanlides, which is already summarized in the lead; per MOS:LEAD. By the way, the sockmaster of the aforementioned sockpuppet, coincidentally had a username (User:Beyoglou) that happens to match the very municipality (Beyoğlu) your IP address geolocates to (see here). Do you have anything to comment on that? Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Recommending reading the Cappadocian Greek article

It's a shame that this article presents the Turkish side of the story as having the same validity as the Greek side despite their not being a single evidence of mass settlement of Turkic mercenaries in Central Anatolia. And despite all the evidence in the origin part of the article that keep confirming the Byzantine Greek origins of these people by scholars and travelers outside from Greece and Turkey who interacted with them and identified them as Greeks. If anyone wants to learn more about these people without baseless myths about their origins I suggest you reading the Cappadocian Greek article. 37.6.32.169 (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

unconstructive excuses

If the issue is that the resources are not in English, there are resources in many languages ​​other than English on the page. Is there a problem when they are in Turkish? This is not just for this page but for all of them. Secondly, it is clearly stated in the sources that they have Turkish roots, so there is no harm in calling them Turks. 5.47.58.44 (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Read, and try to understand the entire section of MOS:ALTNAME, again. Their disputed ultimate origin is already summarized in the lead; per MOS:LEAD. Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)