Talk:Karamanlides

message: 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)
replies: text: An interesting site about them can be found here.  .65.756.46.532 10:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
thread_title:  Greek Alphabet 

message: 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)
thread_title:  strange origin 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Karamanlides picture?

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  edits by 88.253.251.168 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I agree.--Dipa1965 (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible origin 

message: Here are some scholarly sources that might help the page, if anyone cares : [] [] [] [] [] Cheers. --Yalens (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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):
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:
And you referenced the two following pages, that don't support the above.
*
*
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)
thread_title:  Reply to edit summaries of User:Խաղաղություն 

message: @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)
replies: text: Read WP:VANDALISM before accusing editors of "commit[ing] vandalism". ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

text: I'm waiting for your reply @Khirurg Historyofarmenia01 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to edit summary of User:Khirurg 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why is there even a question about their origin 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article needs improving 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 , 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 (). Do you have anything to comment on that? Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I request the page to be fixed by the mod. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recommending reading the Cappadocian Greek article