Talk:Cretan Turks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cretan Turks article.
WikiProject Turkey This article is part of WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Move

I moved the page in 'Cretan Turks'. i think it is better. --Hectorian 01:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number

Is anyone aware of any estimation about the number of Cretan Turks? i think it will be important for this article. --Hectorian 02:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a sourced estimate that says -if I remember right, I don't have in front of me- 30,000, which is, first, too low a number for all with Cretan Turkish descent, and second, has a rather vague basis on what is meant. We didn't live in ghettos since a century, one could indicate Cretan Turkish quarters in places like Bodrum or Ayvalık till recently, but with the rapid development of these towns, with further urbanization and with intermarriages (things that should be taken into account when evaluating all population groups in Turkey), it is very difficult to pronounce a number. I am thinking about it. I will put something if I can come up with an acceptable figure and statements. Cretanforever

I've found two sources about the total number of Cretan Turks. i have added both, since both seem reasonable to me (having in mind that during the population exchange of 1923, 80,000 Cretan Turks were transferred in Turkey). The figure 500,000 comes from a site (in english) that i do not know if it can be considered reliable enough[1]. The other source, citing 200,000-300,000 comes from a greek webpage, is academic and can well be considered reliable [2]. The page is in greek and the number is in bold towards the end of the page. The article is long enough, sourced and wellwritten... i suppose it deserves to have a numerical estimation. --Hectorian 01:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The second source seems reliable enough. --Cretanforever 13:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turks of Cunda

At the Cunda Island island article, it says:

The islands former Greek population was forced out in the course of the population exchange between Greece and Turkey but the Greek population was replaced by Muslim Cretans, ensuring that the island retains a largely Greek atmosphere.

I wanted to know if (a) the Muslim Cretans of Cunda are Cretan Turks or Albanians, (b) who wanted to "ensure" that the island retains a largely Greek atmosphere, and (c) if there are any sources that state this. I know I probably should be asking this at the talk page there, but more people have this page watchlisted. —Khoikhoi 01:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to answer:
(a) They simply can't be Albanians. From the early beginning i thought that the inclusion of the Albanians as ancestors of Cretan Turks was just an exagerration serving two purposes: 1. To underestimate the Greek contribution (which was the most significant one, as seen in their language, traditions, customs, music, vendettas, etc etc etc). 2. To show some sort of a very close relationship with the only muslim distinct balkan nation. (but of course, i am Greek, so my POV is not a surprise)
(b) The Cretan Turks were settled in the coastal areas of Turkey, not in the mainland. Since Turkey was the one to choose were to place the exchanged population, it was definately not an "attempt" to ensure that the island will retain a largely Greek atmosphere, but more like a socio-economic matter: farmers from Thessaly or workers from Thessaloniki could do nothing in a small island. Cretans could!
(c) No idea about sources. Btw, i just learnt the turkish name... I've always knew the place by its greek one... --Hectorian 02:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
(a) Ok, thanks. If we find a source it should be changed to Cretan Turks.
(b) İlginç.
(c) I'll try to do some research myself. —Khoikhoi 02:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

My inclusion of Albanians was a reference to the fact that Crete has been under the administration of an Albanian dynasty and an Albanian governor for 20 years (as aside natural moves by members of that nation during a larger period of time along with other ethnicities of the Empire). Any Albanian element plausibly became Turkified in time rather than Hellenized.

If Greeks had been seen to have a Bavarian touch, for example to have applied Germanic solutions to situations, that would have been worthy of mention. But since the mentioning style remained shaky, I removed Albanians. Cretanforever

Ok, thanks for the explanation. —Khoikhoi 20:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (moved from Talk:Crete)

The article Miskin moved and editted is about Cretan Muslims in Turkey. There are also Cretan Muslims in Syria and Lebanon (village of Hamidie being the most important)[3]. There Cretans are Muslims, but have nothing to do with Turks. The term 'turk' simply meant 'muslim' during the ottoman times in all the Balkans and the places conquered by the ottomans. a note in Cretan Turks that the name does not imply ethnic origin, but rather religious affiliation would be fair enough. Muslim Cretans include Cretan Turks, but they are not limited to them. About the turkish name in the lead of Crete article, pls all have in mind that the Cretan Turks were speaking Greek, so, they called the island nothing more than 'Kriti'. if now their descendants in Turkey speak turkish, this is none of their fault, and if we add how they now call Crete is simply anachronistic (at least). About the population figures in Cretan Turks, it was me who added them (with Cretanforever accepting them). both figures come from greek sources (see talk there), cause it was imposimple to find not even a turkish one. both figures seem resonable to me, since back in 1923 500,000 muslims from greece were transfered in turkey. from these, more than 100,000 were from Crete. so, both figures make sense, 83 years later (the second one if we take in mind intermarriages as well). --Hectorian 20:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with your logic. The article claims 400-500K 'Cretan Turks', that's simply ridiculous. If we abstractly count the next generations as 'Cretan Turks' then we're doing OR (unless of course we start claiming a population of 5,000,000 "Asian Greeks"). I'll find more English sources and make edits according to consensus. By the way, Google book search gives 9 results for "Cretan Turks" and 30 for "Cretan Muslims". Test it for yourself in any search engine you want. I don't care what those people are called in Turkey today (formerly "semi-infidels"), it's against wp policy to use it here. The fact that Greek sources have always called them 'Turks' is also irrelevant. Since as you say the "Cretan Muslims" have no particular connection to Turkey, then the article head must be completely rewritten cos it's giving the wrong definition. It describes "Cretan Muslims" and calls them "Cretan Turks". Miskin 20:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I re-added population figures with sources. pls, do not remove unless u have better sources. for the record, google search gives me 151 results for "Cretan Turks" [4] and 323 for "Cretan Muslims" [5], in Google Greece, i mean. Hectorian 20:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
...and 469 for "Τουρκοκρητικοί". —Khoikhoi 20:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
not exactly... in fact 562 for "Τουρκοκρητικοί" [6]in google.gr... Hectorian 20:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So it appears that the google web and book searches favour me, isn't that enough of an argument to perform a move? On the numbers: The "source" which gives 500K can hardly qualify as a source for the obvious reasons. The Greek source which gives the 200-300 gives a figure on the "Greek-speaking population of Turkey that descend from Cretan Muslims", and not on the Cretan Muslims who left Greece during the exchanges. It's simply a different thing. The article has to be specific, it will either speak about the Cretan Muslims (converted Greeks) who went to Turkey along with the exchanges, or about the Cretan Turks i.e. the Turkified ancestors of the formers. It cannot remain abstract and imply a massive Turkish population in Crete. Have a look at source from google books [7], it claims "some 30,000 in total". Miskin 21:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I also have 3 different neutral sources that clearly state that 'Cretan Muslims' were converted Greeks, therefore the term "Cretan Turks" is anachronistic. Unless of course we start speaking about "Arvanite Greeks". Miskin 21:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My demands:

  • Remove Sci-Fi figures
  • Rename the article

or Clearly state the "Cretan Turks" refers to ancestors of the Turkicified "Muslim Cretans", and not the actual muslims who once lived in Crete. I think it's a reasonable thing to ask. Miskin 21:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Any comments? Miskin 21:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's another source which backs up the figure of 30,000 Hectorian:

"The expulsion, in 1923, of the 30,000 Muslims of Crete (comprising approximately 9% and not "15 per cent of the population") was an awful episode, not only in the history of that island, but, more generally, in those of the newly formed Republic of Turkey and that of Greece." [8] Miskin 22:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion should had started here at first place, but anyway... Khoikhoi was kind enough to move it:).
I have no problem concerning the population figures, however i have to say that in every case i tend to favour the mentioning of 2 figures (lowest and highest) and let the readers decide which is valid, instead of causing rv-wars for such a matter.
Concerning your second demand, Miskin, i would not agree in a rename of the article. But i would like u to present your 3 sources, and to fix the article's lead and content, in order to express both POVs. I also believe that the Cretan Turks are islamized and turkified local Cretan population, and this (supported by credible sources) should be made very clear in this article.
In addition, i would like seeing the creation of a category named 'Cretan Muslims', in which people of Cretan descent and culture will be included (i.e. 'Cretan Turks', 'Cretan Greek-speaking muslims in Syria' and '... in Libya'). All these 3 population groups are of Cretan descent and muslim faith. those in Syria and Libya are aware of their Greek heritage and continue to speak the Greek language-those in Turkey have more or less been assimilated. This has to be made clear here.
BTW, the figure u just provided talks about those expelled, not about those of Cretan heritage. Hectorian 22:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is contradictory however because the article explicitely claims 45% of Crete's population, a completely unsupported claim. Miskin 22:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

From Misha Glenny's: The Balkans (1999):

The fall of Crete was not however accompanied by a significant influx of Muslims from elsewhere in teh Empire. Instead, local Greek notables converted to Islam and continued in their role as chief landowners and administrators so that the Cretan ruling class remained Greek-speaking. Bt the bulk of the population not only declined to convert, they refused to accept the Sultan's rule, unlike Christians in other parts of the Empire.

The section history must be re-written, figures of 45% and 100K of the population are simply not accepted by modern sources. Miskin 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In my view the article's content and subject the way you present it is still the result of original research. I have yet to deal with an anglophone source that speaks about "Cretan Turks: the ancestors of Cretan muslims". "Cretan Turks" is used by english-speaking authors in a non-scientific context to refer to the Cretan Muslims. The article's head is equally ridiculous: An "ethnic turkic population"? How come the Arvanites are not an "ethnic Hellenic population" then? The article's overall overtone implies the Turkish nationalist fantasy of "a muslim Crete" annexed to Greece. This is not a Turkish schoolbook, it takes more than ethnic insecurities to name and compile an article. Miskin 22:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see some corrections in this article, if u are willing to do so. But please, do not rename it. If the term 'Cretan Turk' is anachronistic, the term 'Turkish people' is anachronistic as well. --Hectorian 22:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the head but I'm still not satisfied, it appears that the article needs a cleanup. Despite what you say, the article clearly speaks about the "Cretan Muslims" in general, and not just the ancestors of those Cretan Muslims who migrated to Turkey (like Cretanforever). Actually, it speaks selectively, according to its editor's preferences. In any case, I'm not willing to compromise on something as primitive, WP:POLICY is pretty clear on such matters. Leaving the article at its current state is clearly OR of the worst kind, but as I don't want to play the bad guy here, I'm voting for a strong cleanup. Miskin 22:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course the use of "Turkish people" when referring to the pre-kemalist era is anachronistic, but as I said, I don't want to be the bad guy here. After all, 'Turks' was widely in use by non-Ottoman people to refer to the Ottomans, just like 'Greeks' was in use by non-Greeks to refer to the Byzantines. So whether anachronistic or not, it was in use. It's not the case of course with 'Cretan Turks', who were clearly a converted ethnic Greek people. Miskin 22:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

>>"Neighbors, don't bank too much on geneaology. Eisenhower and Nimitz had German ancestry. Just to state the truth, we don't like you."
This is equivalent to "I am in denial". Do you really think that wikipedia articles are built according to their editors' personal ethnic insecurities? Think again. Miskin 14:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:CIVIL, Miskin. —Khoikhoi 00:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Khoikhoi under what arguments are you disputing the liberation of Crete? Is it Crete another of those places that were contested 50-50 between Turks and Greeks? Well you're wrong, and the fact that you believe such a thing shows why this article needs to be renamed.Miskin 01:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Miskin, I want you to imagine that you are a Turk living in Crete in 1909. Would you prefer the island you live in to become part of Greece or remain part of the Ottoman Empire? Remember that you are Turkish, not Greek (we are still pretending here). What do you think your future will be now that Crete is part of Greece? Think about that. —Khoikhoi 01:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all there were no "Turks" in Crete by 1909, there were only Muslim Cretans who later became (amongst other nationalities) Turkish by _force_. The article's name is giving the wrong idea about what went on. If 91% of Greek Cretans doesn't count as representative, then neither should the smaller number of Greeks in Peloponnese of 1821. What next? Should we rename the Greek war of Independence to Phanariote rule in Peloponnese or something? I'll give you another example. Think of the war of the Maccabees against Antiochus the Illustrious. A _great_ part of Hellenized Jews supported the Greek rulers at the time, yet we're talking about the revolution and liberation of Israel from Hellenistic rule. Nobody speaks about the "Rule of the Maccabees over the Greco-Jewish land of Israel" and nobody even considers the position of Hellenized Jews in the Israilite society. Crete is not Macedonia, you must understand which "ethnic group" has the right to be the owner of the island. Miskin 02:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conversion

About the last addition: In Ottoman Empire's Millet system, both were acts of bureaucratic, legal and social consequences.. why do we have to make it seem the same? It wasn't. Conversion to Islam was encouraged by the Ottoman system, but conversion to Christianity was not only discouraged (additional taxes, janissaries, etc), but, at least in the first centuries, punished by death. Hectorian 11:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You have it Hectorian! The conversions had bureaucratic, legal and social consequences. I will add a link to State and Religion (Ottoman Empire) in the footnote. Cretanforever

[edit] Huh?

In response to this:

   
Talk:Cretan Turks
 I'm not going to let turkish pov pass in this article
   
Talk:Cretan Turks

Miskin, per WP:NPOV, we shouldn't have an article that only reflects the Greek POV, we should include the Turkish one as well (for obvious reasons). Could you please clarify what you meant? —Khoikhoi 01:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is that I provided my sources earlier and I'm pretty sure that they're far from "Greek POV". Claims such as "turkic tribe migrations" are plainly ludicrous and do not have any place in a serious encyclopaedia. We can't just add the opposite of what all neutral sources state, just because it is an editor's point view. Cretanforever's last edits made no improvements whatsoever, they just readded the POV I've been trying to remove. The article's title is Turkish POV anyway, I think it's enough for one article. As for the edit on "liberation", it's basically the opposite of "occupation", quite a simple concept. Miskin 01:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

For unsourced claims that you dispute, simply add {{fact}} tags to them. If they have sources but the sources are biased, rephrase the claims and attribute them properly (i.e. "according to Turkish sources..."). Both "liberation and "occupation" are POV, the most neutral wording I can think of is "became part of Greece". —Khoikhoi 01:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I did rephrase the whole thing and Cretanforever changed it back to his version. My sources on this matter are pretty straight-forward, and Cretanforever's edits are implying basically the opposite. It's just too POV to get away with a 'fact' tag. So far the only reason he's given is "let's keep this origin out, we don't like Greeks" or something like that. I don't understand how a clearly Greek territory that fights for union with Greece cannot use the term 'liberation'. It's just absurde. NPOV doesn't mean "mask the truth in order to make everyone happy", you also need to use common sense. Miskin 01:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's also common sense that even if the island was 100% "pure Greek" at the time, that doesn't stop the fact that Greek scholars on the issue have a certain POV and Turkish scholars have another. Instaed of trying to find a neutral alternative you're trying to find a loophole in order to push a certain view. :-( —Khoikhoi 02:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, I haven't included a single Greek scholar in my sources. Therefore it's fair to not use a Turkish scholar either and let the non-partisan sources reflect the truth. Miskin 02:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
No one said you didn't have to include Greek scholars. Turkish and Greek citations can definately be included—they just have to be attributed properly. —Khoikhoi 02:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see sources and direct citations on the following claims:

Miskin 01:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Then add the tags. —Khoikhoi 02:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I double checked on the internet and verified that the term "liberation of crete" is in fact widely used. If for no good reason because the island acquired the status of an independent state before uniting with the Greek Kingdom. Miskin 02:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So...because it's widely used it's therefore NPOV? —Khoikhoi 02:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it's widely used and because it is correct, for the reasons I just explained. Miskin 02:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How is it correct? Do you really think Cretan Muslims were overjoyed for Crete to become part of Greece? Do all Turkish historians call it liberation as well? —Khoikhoi 02:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

They were certainly not overjoyed to find themselves in Turkey and be labeled the "semi-infidel" either. Despite their origin, they were muslims i.e. by Ottoman law - the conquerors. Therefore their minority view doesn't represent the Cretans any more than the French colonists in Algeria represented the Algerian muslim population. Miskin 02:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Besides Crete became later an independent state, which means that it was liberated from something. The fact that it chose to unify with Greece, means also something. But you're suggesting to ignore all that by claiming a misinterpreted NPOV policy. Miskin 02:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to include any Greek sources, precisely because I don't want to have to deal with Turkish POV. What Turkish historians claim is none of wikipedia's concern. Don't forget that we're dealing with a "scholarship" that shamelessly refuses three different genocides. If some of their claims on the specific topic are correct, then I'm sure we can find them in non-partisan sources. End of story. Miskin 02:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not the "end of story". Miskin, no one is asking you to not include Greek sources, but there isn't a policy against Turkish ones, either. This is not just an issue between Muslim and Christian Cretans—suppose we write an article about a small village in Nagorno-Karabakh home to both Armenians and Azeris: when the Armenians invaded the village (which was predominately Armenian at the time) and expelled the Azeris, can we call this liberation, and present it as a neutral, undisputed fact?
Here's another example, see this part of User:Kober/History of Abkhazia:

Modern Abkhazian historians insist that large areas of the region were left uninhabited, and that many Armenians, Georgians and Russians subsequently migrated to Abkhazia, resettling much of the vacated territory. This version of events is strongly contested by Georgian historians who argue that the local groups of the Georgian people always constituted the majority in Abkhazia. Either way, at the beginning of the 20th century ethnic Abkhaz were a minority in the region. The Encyclopædia Britannica reported in 1911 that in Sukhumi (population at the time 43.000), two-thirds of the population were Mingrelian Georgians and one-third were Abkhaz. In 1881, the number of the Abkhaz in the Russian Empire was estimated at only 20,000. Those Abkhaz who remained in Abkhazia were declared by the Russian government a "guilty people" and "temporary population" and deprived of the right to settle in the coastal areas.

Do you see how both POVs are represented, while in the wording one is not given more priority than the other? It's not our job to sway the reader like this...let him/her decide who is right here. NPOV dictates that all views should be heard. I assume this includes the Turkish POV (which FYI does not even have to be presented as an undisputed fact). Not including it is pure censorship. —Khoikhoi 03:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so naive. You keep argueing on the inclusion of sources that you haven't even seen yet. Miskin 12:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but your examples are not of similar cases. Please, just stay out of this one, it's out of your league and you're only making things worse. The presence of a poor fella like Cretanforever who's in denial of his past has made you to believe that there used to be Turks in Crete. I restored in the article the only edit which claimed a source. WP:CITE is a policy therefore I have to the right to remove anything that doesn't have one. I'd like to see a direct citation for the following claim:

  • According to William Yale, when the Greek War of Independence broke out on the mainland in 1821, the population of Crete was approximately 290,000, of whom 160,000 were Moslems and 130,000 were Christians

My previous requests were ignored, and so were the associated edits. Miskin 11:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm that's very interesting... I just managed to find this book on the internet and this is what William Yale says:

"...in Crete where a Cretan Moslem population of only 30,000 out of a total population of 300,000 had had since 1897 equal political and civil rights with the Christian majority..."

What do you know, another source which supports the 30,000 figure since 1897. I can't find a single reference on a moslem majority of 160,000. He basically says the same things as Glenny. I gotta admit, those Turks are experts at presenting themselves as victims and making other people feel sorry for them. After all, they have fooled every editor on this article. Anyway, since I verified for myself that this source does NOT back up those edits, I'm forced to remove them until Cretanforever proves otherwise. For the time being all I see is that either Cretanforever is lying about his sources, or that he trust Turkish claims too much. Either way, it's a shame that this sort of poor contribution can go in wikipedia unpunished. Miskin 12:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm proposing according to wiki:NAME to rename this article to Cretan Muslims and keep "Cretan Turks" as a sub-section. 80% of the article speaks about the 30,000 Greek Cretan Muslims and not their 300,000 Turkish ancestors, therefore it is against wp:policy to keep it under such a name. An alternative solution would be to start an article on Cretan Muslims, and move the related sections from here. The decision is yours, but one thing's for certain: the article cannot stay in this condition. Miskin 12:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Miskin, somehow I doubt that you read every single source that Cretanforever added to this article... There is nothing to justify a full revert of his work like that. —Khoikhoi 21:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What I'm somehow sure of, is that you haven't been following the dispute at all. What sources did I remove? Source number 1 is on the name "Cretan Muslims" or "Cretan Turks", something nobody questioned and it was removed during the revert, you can add it back in the NPOV article. Source number 2 is on the term "ihtida", so likewise. What I removed was everything that involved the claims of source number 3, i.e. The Near East: A Modern History by William Yale. The text can be found on digital form under subscription on www.questia.com, and I did check it. As I stated above, it claims since the 19th century the analogy of 30K muslims versus 300K Christians, just like the majority of sources do. Cretanforever's claims of a 160K-120K analogy that kept magically decreasing was simply not claimed in the book. The rest of the edits that I removed were pure OR that claimed no source at all, and were based on his fantasy that the island's majority had at some point been muslim. I would advice you to re-read the WP:NPOV policy and pay particular attention at the section Undue weight. You will then realise that an under-supported view does not take precedence over the mainstream views, let alone dominate the article and its head. Of course, for the time being, there is no source whatsoever for Cretanforever's edits, hence you should be looking at WP:VERIFY and WP:OR to find out why I did what I did. Miskin 22:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm keeping however the tag as I'm planning to proceed on a rename to Cretan Muslims, according to wikipedia's naming policy. Miskin 22:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article (the apparently disputed part)

One result of the Ottoman conquest was that a sizeable proportion of the population converted to Islam (same phrasing as below). Contemporary estimates vary, but on the eve of the Greek War of Independence the majority of the population of the island may have been Muslim. According to William Yale, when the Greek War of Independence broke out on the mainland in 1821, the population of Crete was approximately 290,000, of whom 160,000 were Moslems and 130,000 were Christians; and the overwhelming majority of these were Greek-speaking Cretans (William Yale) [3]. One Greek source notes that, had it not been for the Greek War of Independece, the island would have been completely Islamicized (William Yale confirmed by a Greek source). [4] Whereas, according to Misha Glenny, unlike other Ottoman provinces, the fall of Crete was not accompanied by a large influx of muslims. A minority of the population (local Greek notables) converted to Islam, so that the Cretan ruling class would remain Greek-speaking. The majority of contemporary estimates calculate the number of Muslim Cretans at the eve of the 20th century at 30,000, 9% of the island's population (Contradicting source in line with NPOV policy) . The majority were local Greek converts who spoke Cratan Greek. Their descendants are still found in several Muslim countries today, and principally in Turkey (numbering over 200,000). They have a tendency to attribute their origins to an ancestor from Anatolia. There may be some historical foundation to this if the ancestors were in fact Janissaries. This possibility is strengthened by the fact that many of these families still have connections with the Bektashi order of dervishes, the religious affiliation of the Janissaries (same phrasing as below). The emergence within the Ottoman Divan poetry of a distinct "Cretan school" that had largely evolved around dervish orders and counting twenty-one recognized poets is yet another interesting point in this perspective [5] (additional info, I can open pages for each of these poets, add verses:). There were also intermarriages between Cretan Christians and Muslims until the middle of the 19th century, and possibly later (same phrasing as below).

and the wikipedia article on

Hello, welcome to wikipedia. Read WP:CITE before citing an other article as your source (which is also about to be corrected according to NPOV policy anyway). Miskin 06:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Crete

One result of the Ottoman conquest was that a sizeable proportion of the population converted to Islam. Contemporary estimates vary, but on the eve of the Greek War of Independence as much as 45% of the population[1] of the island may have been Muslim. It declined sharply during the 19th century and there are conflicting estimates of its numbers, but according to British consular reports which are probably the most independent guesses, at the end of the nineteenth century, the Cretan Muslims still numbered around 100,000. Though some of this Muslim population was accounted for by officials, soldiers and immigrants from Turkey, an important part was local converts who continued to speak Greek and even write it in Arabic script. Descendants of these Turco-Cretans are still found in several Muslim countries today. Each family tends to attribute its origins to an ancestor from Anatolia. There may be some historical foundation to this if the ancestors were in fact Janissaries. This possibility is strengthened by the fact that many of these families still have connections with the Bektashi order of dervishes, the religious affiliation of the Janissaries, which also led to the emergence of a school of a Cretan Bektashi literature (in Turkish). There was also intermarriage between Cretan Christians and Muslims until the middle of the nineteenth century, and possibly later. In Crete, as in other Ottoman lands, there were also Crypto-Christians, families which were outwardly Muslim but some of whom retained their Christian identity in private.

Rahmizâde Bahaeddin Bediz

I saw the edits on History of Crete. And I understand. That's what happens if you change between faiths like between overcoats:) If we don't want to see 21 poets from Ottoman Divan poetry tradition ornamenting this page (with more to come), I am putting it back to Cretan Turks (or Turkish Cretans, that suits me fine too), with explanatory footnote at the first line. With the second footnote on the "muhtedî" and the "mürtedî" following. :)

Joke apart, you risk having an empty page with Cretan Moslems. It's not the first term one would use for the individuals mentioned here. But I can provide info on former Cretan Moslems, who remain very much traceable on an individual basis. [9]

Cretanforever

This article is on Cretan Muslims, which doesn't mean "Turks". If you want a separate article on the ancestors of the Muslims who came to Turkey from Crete, you'll need to start it from scratch, or borrow the 5 relevant lines from the present article. Miskin 17:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move warring

Can people please stop move warring. I admit I participated only for WP:POINT reasons, and I wanted to try that move block trick Khoikhoi uses a lot, but maybe we should get an admin to move it to its original location and then follow the procedure properly. --Tzekai 16:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'll talk to an admin right now. BTW, "Muslems" isn't even spelled correctly. —Khoikhoi 17:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The "Muslems" was a typo. I need to learn that move+block trick as well. Khoikhoi we did the google test together, you know wp naming policy already, so I don't even know why you're still arguing on this. Miskin 17:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

See [10] and [11]. Just start a WP:RM poll, leave it for a couple of days, and if you are right, then it will be moved to the proper title (Cretan Muslims) and it will be end of story. --Tzekai 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, what was wrong with my Cretan Mohammedans? :p --Tzekai 17:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Dirty trick... Miskin 22:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Are we going to move the article to its proper name or are we going to troll some more khoikhoi? Miskin 23:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that unilateral moves without discussion and concensus are against the policies of Wikipedia. Subsequently, users who had performed those unilateral moves have been blocked for a 24h period. Please, discuss the issue here before moving anything unilateraly. Thanks. -- Szvest 23:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®

This is not just about khoikhoi, miskin.. There is no concensus, I also see that you tried to get it moved three weeks ago.. In any case what is this circus of Moslem, Muslem, Mohammedans? What is this talk of Google tests?? Google is not an academic source.. It can give an idea, but nothing more. Period..Baristarim 23:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, if you are so much interested in an article about Cretan Muslims, please go start one miskin. But respect other people's work and don't move this article like you did.. Baristarim 23:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This article talks about Cretan Muslims, it does not give special focus to Cretan Turks. Actually this article's name was originally Cretan Muslims, it was moved without consensus some time ago. See wikipedia's naming policy, the Google test is suggested there. Miskin 00:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the first version of the article by Cretanforever. It was at "Turkish Cretans", not "Cretan Muslims". —Khoikhoi 00:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess a specific comment gave me the wrong idea. Either way this name doesn't comply to WP:NAME nor the related naming conventions, and you know very well khoikhoi the results of the google test, I don't understand what pleasure you receive but continue opposing my edits here. WP:NAME is a POLICY, which means that we don't have to reach a consensus to perform a move. In any case, more than 3 editors were in agreement. Miskin 00:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, make that four... •NikoSilver• 00:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

(to Miskin) How does it comply to WP:NAME? Who says we don't have to follow consensus? Is it because you think it complies or because you know it complies? Three Four editors agreeing? What about me, Cretanforever, and Baristarim—do we not count? —Khoikhoi 00:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi is right about the article's creation. i then removed it to 'Cretan Turks' for reasons i explained on that 'move summary', without creating any tentions with the creator of the article, Cretanforever. However, at that time the article was in an 'infant status', lacking basic characteristics (culture, population figures, history) and talking only about cretans who spoke turkish, were muslims and had a turkish national identity. and all those based on the then sources provided (note that the info of some of them was altered in the article). now, the article is talking about greek-speaking muslims, local converts and Cretans of muslim faith in counties other than Turkey (notably Syria, Lebanon, Egypt). having the article under the current title, the next thing i expect is to list the people of Al Hamidiyah in Turkish diaspora (huh?!). the article has to be remained into 'Cretan Muslims', where 'Cretan Turks' will be a section, or it should be split, and the 'Cretan Turks' article will talk only about those it has to (id est, those Cretan Muslims who live in Turkey today). maybe a category 'Cretan Muslims' would be created then, in order to include all. Hectorian 00:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps then we could move some if this article's cotent to a new article called Islam in Crete, as a sub-article of Islam in Greece. —Khoikhoi 00:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Hector's comment illustrated the exact impression I had when I read the article. I oppose to 'split', and agree to 'sub-heading'. Khoi's proposal: I need a little time to think. •NikoSilver• 01:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Khoikhoi's new suggestion. Keep in mind though that this would require editing the article as well. A rename to Cretan Muslims would only require an article move. Miskin 01:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I oppose to split the article as well (i tried to illustrate the 2 options that we have before), for no other reason, but that we will just create some more stubs... 'sub-heading' will be better. i am not sure if 'Islam in Crete' would be a good article and not just a repetition of 'Cretan Muslims'... In addition, what i see in similar articles about '(religion) in (country)' is that they are talking about the present, not the past. in the same way, we could create an article Greek Orthodoxy in Cappadocia, which would be nothing more than a repetition of Cappadocian Greek and Karamanlides, not to mention that it would talk about faithful that no longer live in Cappadocia. Hectorian 01:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright, it was just a suggestion anyways. I'll try to think of some more. —Khoikhoi 01:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Hectorian. Amongst other things, 'Islam in Crete' would offer opportunities for POV-forking. "Cretan Muslims" however is the standard anglophone term, and I never understood why neutral people opposed it. Miskin 01:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No absoloutely not, i oppose any move. This article is specifically to do with descendents of the Ottoman Empire in Crete who consider themselves Turks, that is enough to warrant the articles entry. If people are trying to change the articles focus towards Islam, then create a new article. --A.Garnet 07:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I heartily support the idea of an article titled Islam in Crete, so that this article remains focused on people. Cretanforever

That suggestion was about moving the current article to 'Islam in Crete', not creating a new one. A. Garnet do you have any English sources that can support your claim? After having seen your arguments against the Pontic Greek genocide I find it hypocritical that you suggest such a thing. Despite what you say, 80% of the Article focuses on Cretan Greeks of the Muslim religion, and not on Turks. The Cretan Turks are treated in their respective section. The "An eye for an eye" strategy that you're trying to apply is a really poor editing practice. Miskin 10:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POLICY

  • Google web search gives 348 results for "Cretan Muslims" and 100 for "Cretan Turks".
  • Google book search gives Books 1 - 10 with 49 pages on "cretan muslims" and Books 1 - 9 with 9 pages on "cretan turks".
  • Google scholar search gives 26 for "Cretan muslims" and 5 for "Cretan Turks".

Quoting from WP:NAME:

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

and

A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English: The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.

Is anyone still not convinced that this is a WP:POLICY issue and does not require a consensus? If yes, then explain before making any alternative suggestions. If not then I should proceed with the move. Miskin 11:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not the point. You can split the article into two: One for Cretan Muslims and one for Cretan Turks. There is enough written under Cretan Turks and a list of them to warrant an article (plus history).. Cretan Turks refers to something specific, it is not upto you to decide if it is notable or not.. If you want, split the article than add the first part of this article to it, if you really would like to write about Cretan Muslims and their history, you can imporove it too.. :)) There is no basis for deletion - Religion and Race are not the samething, but it is not fair to delete Cretan Turks this way.. Baristarim 13:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've already proposed that in the past. Miskin 21:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, the article current state is still trying to imply that Cretan Muslim = Turk. I'll realise now the solution proposed by two of the Turkish editors, before it gets any worse. Miskin 10:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would have no problem, and in fact approve if you split the article into two and remove the contents about only Muslims, and leave an article that talked about the Cretan Turks, what kinda bothered me however, is the fact that you seemed to want to delete the article and just wipe out the Cretan Turks article, maybe I was mistaken, I don't know.. Baristarim 18:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I know you don't Baristarim, me you and Garnet independently proposed the same thing, Khoikhoi is only opposing every single of edits because of personal reasons. I never wanted to wipe out the article, initially I wanted to add it a section of the same article for practical reasons. Miskin 18:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What personal reasons? —Khoikhoi 18:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, ask yourself. Miskin 18:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, normally I don't talk to myself... —Khoikhoi 18:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We need a Cretan language article

Cretan language achieved recognition by the EU as a distinct language according to this link [12], yet there is no article on wikipedia about it. There is one on Eteocretan language, but that relates to antiquity and even before. We definitely need an article on the living Giritçe. Instead of turning this page into a juggling ball till the boil point, it could be a nice starting point and a good homework for Cretan Christians (or, sometimes Muslims, sometimes Christians, according to how the wind blows, since "Cretans dislike investments with poor returns" source: same link). It is always better to start from home rather than ... (I will stop there). Cretanforever 11:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I really admire your enthusiasm, Cretanforever;-). but the link u provided is really stupid... There is no objection among the world's serious linguists that the 'Cretan dialect' stems from Koine Greek (just like all the other modern greek dialects, apart from Tsakonian and, maybe, Griko). In addition, Linear A has not yet been read, so, any suggestion that it has anything to do with modern 'Kritika' is in a theoretical base. and, btw, the 'Eteocretan language' may had nothing to do with modern Cretan (since it is considered by many as Pelasgian-however, the relation between Greek-Pelasgian is somehow obscure, and no answer can be given for both of the above, unless Linear A is read... sadly, Michael Ventris died so young...). Furthermore, Ancient Greek is not dead... it is still alive, passing through medieval-byzantine to modern greek (like a human being that gets older through time...). A modern Cretan speaker would have the same potential to understand an ancient ancestor in Knossos, Mycenae, or elsewhere in Greece, as a modern e.g. Thessalian. Also, saying that Cretan has remaned "purer" than other greek dialects is indeed laughable!:). In mainland Greece there are many linguistic infuences from turkish and slavic languages, whereas in the islands (Crete, Ionian and Aegean isl.) and also Cyprus the italian, latin and french infuence is more than evident... I guess u know that the most important works of early modern greek literature (Erotokritos, King Rodolinos, Voskopoula, Katzourbos, Panoria, and of course Erophile) were written in the cretan dialect, and many scholars suggest that, had Crete not fallen in 1669, the cretan dialect may had become Standard Greek (instead of the modern standard greek, largely based on the Peloponnesian dialect for obvious reasons). However, i support the creation of an article like that, but named Cretan dialect. think it would be really interesting... Regards Hectorian 12:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

All this is material for an article Hectorian, not for a talk page:) . I see stuff heaving to be born in the form of an article. Till then, I kindly request that the work I have done, and prepared to do still, for this article be respected. May each user concentrate on what he knows or he has the grounds to develop. You are from Thessaly, right? (joking:) Cretanforever 12:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL... yes, i am from Thessaly... i think i should had used another greek subgroup as an example;-) (if i remember well, i had told u i'm from Thessaly in your talk, anyway...). I am thinking of creating an article on 'Cretan dialect' soon, cause u re-enforced my interest on that! Your work on this article is much appreciated and respected on my behalf. but, i will remove the 'Albanians' from the 'Infobox: related ethnic groups'... I think it does not represent the very minor contribution they have in 'Cretan Turks' (perhaps they are as important as the Venetians or the Arabs or Romans are for the whole island). feel free to re-add it, but do consider it first. Regards Hectorian 12:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian, I already removed the Albanians from the lead. As I stated before, the island has been ruled by an Albanian dynasty and an Albanian governor for 20 years. The first two Khedives of Egypt had shaped a very dynamic power for their time. In Çukurova, the same Khedives drastically changed the economy and added new elements into the human colors of the region within 9 years. When I was in Rethymnon, I was told that "this place and that place" were the Turkish quarters, and "this place" was the Albanian quarter. What they became is, at the end of the day, plausibly a question of individual history for each. But they deserve to be mentioned here because of the relative parallels in the spheres of culture. I included Matthew of Candia, an Armenian who had evolved within Turkish cultural spheres, for the same reasons, but he has been deleted. If there weren't any Turkish Cretans, none would have had any connections with the island. I display my arguments in appreciation of your general wikipedian qualities. Cretanforever 13:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment:). I have to admit that i am not much aware of the Cretan history during the 19th century, at least this is when i suppose the 'albanian quarters' u mentioned were formed... 20 years of albanian governors, or maybe some more decades of albanian infuence, i think are not enough to be mentioned in the infobox (note that Romans, Arabs, Venetians, Jews had had more infuence on the island and its people and for much longer, but are not mentioned at all...). I would propose, though, to mention this in detail in the main body of the article. having 'Greeks' and 'Turks' as related ethnic groups in the box, i think its the most widely accepted and no disputed at all. (i am not disputing Albanians' contribution, but their prominence). If u think differently (and maybe know better) re-add it, i won't revert it... Regards Hectorian 13:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done! We are a step closer to a purely Greek History of Crete:) Cretanforever 17:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Hectorian 07:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a Cretan language or Cretan dialect (decide!) article to be started in order to pursue here. At this moment, the article makes reference to many Cretan Turks "preserving their unique culture, traditions, and Greek language" which needs an additional touch of precision. It will be a kakomira thing if I have to start the Giritçe article:) Cretanforever 07:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

U will have to wait no more:). Cretan Greek. I know, it needs work. i added to it material from Modern Greek literature and some facts from History of Crete. it stll needs information about the structure and its grammar feutures. for the other possible requests for citations, they will be provided as time passes. Feel free to make corrections and to add info. to be honest, i am curious (and interested, i must say) to see info about the present usage of the dialect by your Cretan compatriots there! Regards Hectorian 15:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thx, at least there is an article now. There's work to do! One day I will be back and claim this place for the people of Afrika! (never mind! it's just a Lenny Henry quote that rose to my mind:) Cretanforever 19:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there such a thing?

Was there ever such a thing as a 'Cretan Turk'? I mean, they are not native inhabitants to the island, it's a bit like saying Turkish 'Cypriot'. Perhaps we should draw the distinction between the native inhabitants (Cretans) and the Turks?

What the heck is "native inhabitants" ? So Greeks are not native to Greece too. According to sub saharan theory, they've migrated to "Greece" from Ethiopia, so ... --BlueEyedCat 00:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Such personal views and poor referencing is the source of most content disputes in wikipedia, BlueEyedCat. Miskin 14:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ?

What is "Turkkritikoi"? Baristarim 13:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did u see that? Probably it is a typo: Turkokritikoi, somehow bad translileration from greek Τουρκοκρητικοί/Tourkokritikoi/turkokritiki (the last one being the closest phonologically in the english language, the second being a mixture of phonology in latin characters+greek orthography:). Hectorian 13:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV check

I know that in rare cases the term "Cretan Turks" is used as direct translation of the Greek 'Tourkokrites' in order to refer to "Cretan Muslims" in general. However, is there really any proof that the English language contains the term "Cretan Turks" in order to refer to the Turkish nationals of Cretan ancestry as the article claims? Miskin 14:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/e/Talk%7ECretan_Turks_30ff.html"