Talk:Pontic Greeks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Pontic Greeks, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
High This article has been rated as a High priority article
WikiProject Turkey
Turkey Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Pontic Greeks:

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

Contents

[edit] Pontic vs Pontian

"Pontic Greeks" is definitely more common in English. "Pontian" isn't even common in Greek, is it? I realize that in Modern Greek the word ποντικός is "mouse" from the ancient ποντικός μυς, so the word for "Pontic" was adjusted to Ποντιακός. But if we tried to render that in English, we would get Pontiac, the name of an Indian chief and a city and make of car both named in his honor. Since this is the English Wikipedia, it's best to stick with "Pontic," despite how strange that might sound in Greek hears. --Joe 00:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In French, it's also "Pontiques", and in Greek just πόντιοι. In Spanish Griegos pónticos --Pylambert (I wrote most of the French article Pontiques) 00:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should be merged; we cannot have differences in spelling or variations of qualitatives, duplicating articles.Politis 15:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Pontian describes a person who originates from Pontos. Just as a Russian of Russia, an Italian from Italy, and an American from America. Pontic is used to define a region such as The Pontic Alps, and also is used on a historical perspective. Modern day Pontians still consider themselves descendants of Pontos and are extremely proud of their ethnicity so therefore using a regional or historic term such as Pontic would not be right. --Amaseia 13:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Pontic Greeks" is much more common in English than "Pontian Greeks" -- checked in google.com (general Web usage 12:1) and also in scholar.google.com (scholarly articles 3:1). I do not understand why Pontian would be better or worse than Pontic, and in any case, Wikipedia reports actual usage. --Macrakis 02:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go ahead and merge than. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 02:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


There is a problem with the basic structure and definition in this article. I have spoken to several Greek collegues and done a bit of study on this.

Pontic can and does mean quite a few different things. the current article conflates these different things and creates a serious confusion without any explaination.

There are at least three distinct meanings:

1)The term Pontic can and has refered to a very specific area. Specifically the area of Trabzon, and really is often used to mean trabzon and now its dispora only. For example see the lists in the article itself of links of "pontic associations" they all refer just to this area alone. Certainly when we speak of the "pontic Greek" dialect we exclude the other areas of the black sea and only mean this one area.

2) the term Pontic can also mean all the cities on the Black sea. In that sense it is a purely geographic designation. The people did engage in vigorus commerce with each other but also the rest of the Greek places and indeed all the Ottoman places by sea. Greeks who had big majority or minority populiatons on notable port cities and towns, many extant and continious from ancient times, on the rest of the coast of Turkey, all the coasts of Bulgaria, Romania, Ukaraine, Crimia and all over are also called Pontic in the sense that they are on the "pontos" (the black sea). But a Greeks in Varna, Constanza etc hade more intercourse with compatriotes in Istanbul and their dialect, traditions were "standard" Greek. They were no closer culturally and lingusitcally amd probably more distant to the trapezon Greeks than they were Greeks in Alexandria or Izmir.

3) the other meaning of Pontic is very broad and means everyone from the population exchange this includes Greeks from the south coast of Turkey, the Aegean coast, inland etc. Here is where the "ethnci slure"note


for certain the opening paragraph, which I must change is wrong saying this: "The Pontic Greeks, Pontians, or Black Sea Greeks (Greek Πόντιοι, Ποντιακοί) are Greeks from the shores of the Black Sea, the Pontus. They traditionally speak Pontic Greek."

This must be changed to note the term has a number of uses, and if Pontic Greek dialect is mentioned we should not imply that this is what most of the Greeks on theBlack sea spoke. it is not the case.10:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] clarity needed

Multiple usage of the term is somewhat addressed in opening graph but following graphs continue to conflate confusingly the Trabzond culture with the more general application or misapplication of "Pontic/Pontoi".

Pontic culture and especially language is/was very specific. When we list towns on Black Sea Thrace now in Bulgaria or the Danube (now in Romania) as Pontic, we need to be careful and need to parse for the reader. A Greek from the western and northern Black Sea would have more in common cultural and in dialect with a Greek of Constantinople/Istanbul, Smyrna/Izmir and indeed Alexandria Egypt and Athens than they would with the Trabzond Greeks. The reader should not think a Greeks from most of the cities listed (and most are outside of the Trabzon Pontic area) would speak "Pontic Greek", engage in Pontic Dance, etc.

The problem arises from contemporary Greek usage where "Pontoi" can now refer to anyone from the Black Sea area, and in some usages, any of the refugee populations from Turkey (90% of whom were not Pontic in the cultural sense) as well as refugees from Bulgaria, Romania or even European Eastern Thrace.71.252.33.135 12:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Actually the contemporary Greek usage of "Pontioi/ Πόντιοι" only refers to Greeks of the Northern regions of Turkey. Modern Greek scholars that study this topic would attest to that. If Pontian Greeks are from Russia or any former Soviet republic they are referred to as "Russopontioi/ Ρωσοπόντιοι" meaning Pontians from Russia. There are many modern Greek sources that can attest to this dichotomy. I will post some here. The usage of the term for Bulgarian, Romanian or Thracian Greeks is something that I have seen for the first time here in Wikipedia.--Pontiakos 14:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language

Is there a distinct Pontian language or dialect? RJFJR 15:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A Pontic-Greek dialect - Sthenel 17:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


Yes there is a distinct Pontian-Greek dialect. There is a complete dictionary printed in Greek-Pontian versions as well as Grammar books and a plethora of literature in the Pontian Greek dialect. I can provide sources upon request. --Pontiakos 14:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)--

[edit] cleanup

The links need to be cleaned up, I am not sure fortunecity links are allowed, anyway they are too many. Instead of 'Grk.' one should use the template {{Lang-gr}}, or just write the Greek names and write in parantheses the transliterations and translations. I started, but there are way too many. Also the book of Thea Leo 1) is primary source, 2) does not include the word 'Hofmann' (used amazon search inside). Also, we should not link to Amazon if possible. Besides these, the current names should appear in that settlements section (possibly with Greek names in the parantheses) DenizTC 11:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The towns should be mentioned with their original names that Pontians gave to them (it's a history related article not geography). The wikilinks will make clear what their current names are. - Sthenel 11:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think they are all historical names, they are just the names (Pontic) Greeks use for them today. Anyway, I think it's fine this way, since it is about the settlements now. DenizTC 12:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Just an example: When we talk about the Byzantine Empire and the Byzantine Greeks in general we refer to Constantinople, not Istanbul. The same with the Pontians - Sthenel 14:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you please explain more, what are those settlements exactly? I don't think they are the ones established by Pontic Greeks. I thought they were settlements a good number of Pontic Greeks inhabit now. But maybe they are the districts of ancient Pontus. And, what about Tokat, Hatzi-Koi, Akdag-Maten? DenizTC 15:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ancient settlement names are mentioned in Thucidides, Xenophon, Strabo, Pausanias. A good example is the capital of the later Byzantine state of Trapezounda (modern Greek version of the name). The Turkish name for the same city is Trabzon. The ancient Greek (classical Greek era ca.780 when the city was founded) name was Trapezeus. Literally meaning table (trap-) of Zeus. There are many more examples such as this one. As far as Tokat, Hatzi-Koi, I will find some answers for you. However, it is also possible that these were Turkish settlements initially. --Pontiakos 14:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sthenel, please revert. It's POV, not well sourced, I searched the source on Amazon.com, could not find it (might be on 'restricted' pages, some books have such pages). It's given too much weight for something like that. Please take a look again at WP:NOT, you probably know it, but I wanted to remind you. Also, don't we have a photo of a Pontic Greek, if you are one, please take a photo of yourself, I think having a photo would be better than that painting. You don't need to be dressed in traditional clothes. DenizTC 18:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thea Halo's book

Like I mentioned above and in all those edit summaries, Thea Halo is primary source, so should not be included. The link is to Amazon.com, it should be changed. DenizTC 12:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Sthenel or others:
  1. The book is not primary source, because ...
  2. It is primary source but we can include the quote because ...
  3. The book is primary source, we cannot use it, but we will use it, even 'blockquote' the quote, because ...
  4. 4th option(?)

DenizTC 12:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Who told you that a primary source can not be included? Wikipedia's policy doesn't allow the use of the original research not the primary source. See Wikipedia:No original research. - Sthenel 15:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Please read that policy. I am moving the paragraph here. It cannot be included unless we agree (not the other way around).
“ The Armenian genocide in Turkey during World War I is widely known. Almost unknown, however, is the annihilation of the Pontic Greeks, who had lived for 3000 years in the Pontic Mountains near the Black Sea, by Kemal Ataturk's military forces after the war. In 1921, one survivor, ten-year-old Sano Halo (the author's mother), was forced with her entire village on a nearly year-long death march to Syria. Separated from her family, she lost even her name when she was sold by her surrogate family to a man three times her age, whom she married; later, they emigrated to New York City and raised ten children. ”

[1][unreliable source?]

Now please verify this with non-primary sources. Else we cannot have them. Especially not block quote them. DenizTC 16:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why?--Ploutarchos 16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Welcome here. Please see WP:NPOV WP:NOR (NPOV for the other article we were discussing). DenizTC 17:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." DenizTC 17:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what's your problem with this? She describes her life. Can you contradict to her? Why don't you want to include it? - Sthenel 18:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have the same question for Denizz. I have met Sano, the woman whose life this book is about, she is now over 100 years old. Why don' you want to include it? --Pontiakos 14:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think contributor Denizz understands the primary source issue as she quoted it. The article does not rely primarily on the primary source of the Halo quote. Teh section makes the stamtent that the population was subjected to persecution and ethnic cleansing. That is a fact supported by all secondary sources including many in Turkey. Denizz, in case you don't know, the Greek population of Turkey was ethnically cleansed. They are not there and did not leave of their will. I think perhaps you should look at wikipedia section on "Greek Turkish population Exchange." The inclusion of the quote is not the proving citation, there are many articels in wikipedia and elsewhere that discuss that issue, it is to show a typical experience. One sees this all over wikipedia with the use of quotes.72.75.6.102 04:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] third subsection about the same thing

as people still ask "why?" Please check talk page first, or read the edit summaries

It is a primary source, I don't have any problems with anybody/anything. I hope I will stay like that, but I am not sure about it at the moment. If there are rules we must abide by the rules, until the rules change, which is unlikely in this case; so maybe we should change. Primary sources must be accompanied by non-primary sources (which makes them not so necessary), that is the rule. Now once again:

  1. The book is not primary source, because ...
  2. It is primary source but we can include the quote because ...
  3. The book is primary source, we cannot use it, but we will use it, even 'blockquote' the quote, because ...
  4. 4th option(?)

DenizTC 22:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


This book is a primary source, an eyewitness account. There are many, many, such eyewitness accounts that have been recorded in books over the past 80 years. This is how history is written, see the Jewish Holocaust. Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. So what are you not sure about?

WP:PSTS

--Pontiakos 14:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are discouraged on Wikipedia. Please read further on WP:PSTS. DenizTC 20:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
No they are not at all. what is discoureged is interpretation of the primary without a secondary. Did you even read the rules on sources you have posted?72.75.6.102 04:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I've read it several times, but I failed to see the keyword 'interpretation', I guess (though we also have the following there: 'Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources'). Anyway, I am still against abusive blockquoting, and the illustration (picture), also the name of the settlements, and reflecting the population exchange one sided. Also there is a distinction in Turkish between 'Rum' (Greek Orthodox Anatolians) and 'Yunan' (from Ionanian, now used only for Greeks of Greece, back than it might have included 'Rum's on the Aegean cost) (I'm talking about Ascherton quote). When talking about population exchange, we might need to talk about 19th century 'Muhacir's from Balkans as well. DenizTC 17:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And what is so good about that picture? We had the picture of some Pontic people there. Why do we need an illustration? DenizTC 20:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] laertes' additions

Sure this article is about Pontic Greeks, however population exchange was a mutual phenomena, as Turks from greece were also expelled from the places they had lived..what's the problem with it? And the rest of the citations were from reliable academic source, unlike the rest of the sources that has been used in this article..I'm waiting for an explanation for your blind reversions Sthenel..--laertes d 19:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The simple explanation is that this is not about population exchange.. We are talking about Pontic Greeks, not all the populations of the exchange - Sthenel 13:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pontic greeks were subjected to the same population exchange agreement with which Turks of Greece were also expelled from greece..Article mentions about this population exchange programme, if you dont want to see the history as it is, then do not mention from the population exchange at all..And do not delete neutral point of view citations from the article..--laertes d 09:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sthenel, do i have to remind you that you dont own this article and that i can include citations from the works of scholars who happen to be non pro turkish? Stop deleting sourced content without discussng them first please..--laertes d
Sthenel is right; this article is about the Pontians, not the atrocities committed in western Asia Minor during the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-22. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If you talk about the atrocities committed in the same period of time, during the greco turkish war, then the logical solution would be to talk about the atrocities greeks committed as well at that time..--laertes d —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

They are discussed in the relevant articles. This article is about the Greeks of Pontus and their history. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

History of pontic greeks is a part of world history, and particularly fate of pontic greeks is closely related with the greek occupation and greco turkish war this occupation caused after the WWI..Making references to this war is completely relevant to the subject matter as article in its current form gives an emphasis to the events of this period of time..--laertes d —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I give up with this article (at least for now), Laertes d has agreed on 1rr as far as I know. I hope Sthenel will make the changes to this article. At least change the picture back to the Pontic people one, unless that one is copyrighted. This illustration is 1) an illustration 2) CC with no attribution to the author. DenizTC 20:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Kekrops you seem to return to your old habit of reverting anything that you dont like, without any discussion in the talk page. If a book review article can be used in this article, surely academic sources about the same period of time can also be used..Discuss your reversions in the talk page, if you dont have anyhting to discuss then dont revert it..laertes d 08:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

i can tell the same thing for you Sthenel, if you dont have anything to say in here then dont revert the article..laertes d 16:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christodoulos

Christodoulos wasnt pontic but threkian from Adrianoupoli (Edirne) which is in eastern thrace... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.78.231.4 (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)