Talk:Dönmeh

message: Never heard of him, and not sure if he belongs in the article.  The edits about him were associated with vandalism.  For now, I've put a "citation needed" template next to the sentence about him, but could someone please verify that he's notable as a neo-Sabbatean?  He doesn't seem to have his own article at this point.  --AFriedman (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tuncay Guney

message: I changed the completion state from "start" to "stub."  I also gave the article a "recent events" tag because at this point, I think the article gives WP:Undue weight to newly developed neo-Sabbatean movements such as the Donmeh West.  These are noteworthy groups and are good to mention in the article in this level of detail, but the article is missing more important information on the subject such as the several-hundred-year history of the Donmeh, their religion and culture, and their specific contributions to Turkish society.  Would anyone be interested in adding some or all of this?  --AFriedman (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of a project for one of my classes involves working on a Wikipedia article. I'm working my way through some additional resources (Maciejko 2011, Scholem 1978, etc.) in an attempt to add information on the development of the three main branches of the Donmeh, particularly the Berukhiah sect which gave rise to Frankism. Any other thoughts about directions for expansion? --SDSKrupnikova 1:51 a.m., 7 March 2013  —Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent events tag and completion state

message: Several anonymous Users have repeatedly tried to remove internal links from this article.  The links are about subjects that are related to the topic of the article.  Why are they being removed?  --AFriedman (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because someone has been trying to censor some facts out of this wikipedia article. as everybody will see, the article was stable until 21st december. Then on, some guy from antalya-turkey started to shape the article to their own taste. More eyes are needed to prevent that "agenda". 78.181.149.192 (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Internal links

message: Böri (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karakaş - Yakubî - Kapanî 

message: The article lede contains the statement: "Dönmeh are not officially recognized as such by Jewish authorities." What "Jewish authorities?" -Stevertigo (t | c) 08:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authority 

message: Merge this article to Crypto-Judaism because it is part of that concept and not a separate one. --E4024 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: While it may be conventionally described as a crypto-Judaic cult, it also followed certain crytpo-Muslim practices and was not exclusively crypto-Jewish. In fact, members of the group actively avoided interacting with Jews as much as they did with Muslims, favoring their own members for marriage and other social activities. -- SDSKrupnikova 11:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose.  This developed into a separate and unique concept. And it was highly influential on Turkish life and so deserves its own article. JASpencer (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Oppose.  Particular examples of a general concept can have their own articles if they are notable enough.  This one is. Zerotalk 14:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Oppose. The Dönme have often been rejected by other Muslism for being too Jewish to be Muslim, and by other Jews for being too Muslim to be Jewish. Labeling them "crypto-Jewish" has the effect of deciding, from the outside, what their "true" identity is. (There is a similar problem with the concept of "crypto-Christian.") Yes, some people in the Ottoman empire actually walked the line between different religious affiliations. Lumping the Dönmeh in with, say, Jews who were forced to convert to Catholicism during the Spanish Inquisition, is homogenizing and imposes a European model of religious identity onto a group of Ottoman Muslims/Jews.96.235.177.63 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The opening sentence says:
I am not sure if this is perfectly accurate. Dönme in Turkish can be and have been used in reference to all converts to Islam, not just the ones with an additional secret identity. --Mttll (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dönmeh" 

message: After reviewing the change of content that was just done I decided it was too radical a change of content. The text that was there requested sources for some mild statements. The text that was put in makes some radically different strong arguments in a different direction. Since the subject of the text added is controversial I decided to roll it back, and to open this discussion of the content added here, instead. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 16:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The material now re-inserted (and removed for a second time), refers to a specific person/historical character. This person/character has its separate page on WP, and this material maybe belong there. But it certainly cannot replace here the content that was there, and needed references, in this page. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 17:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

text: The material that was there and was REMOVED tried to argue that there are suggestions that many Donmeh may have been involved in the replacement of the old imperial Ottoman monarchy with the republic by Ataturk and his Young Turks movement. The material that was inserted refers to a specific character, that may have been a Donmeh or not, that was allegedly involved in the later murder of Ataturk. Two completely different subjects. Plus, the material that was inserted refers to a subject that has its own separate page on WP, and maybe belongs there. But not here, and not in the place and manner it was inserted. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 17:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the material removed and the new material inserted relate to current sensitive and controversial political matters. This type of political material needs to be handled with special care. It is OK to request references for the material that was there originally. But to replace it with sensitive political material that goes in the complete opposite direction is something different. It cannot be done in the form that was done. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 17:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Several people are mentioned in the article: Sabbatai Zevi, Berechiah Russo, Jacob Frank, Mehmet Karakaş Rüştü, etc. For example, there is a subtitle for Mehmet Karakaş Rüştü in the article. This does not mean that the article focuses on Rüştü. There is no problem in adding Mehmed Cavid to these. I didn't focus on him. I re-added Mehmed Cavid but did not remove the old texts. Aybeg (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant change of content that was rolled back 

message: The claim that Ataturk was a Donmeh is a statement made by the Islamists, who were not satisfied with his reforms, this section needs to be rechecked. 103.169.65.42 (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the sections mentioning Atatürk. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I had made a comment to that effect, but you beat me to it. I agree with your changes. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 17:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We could also remove (or try to source) all the unsourced paragraphs with citation needed since 2014... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I think that all the works of Marc David Bear already cited in the page would contain references to all these unsourced paragraphs. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 18:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ataturk