Talk:Pontic Greeks

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Theokaps.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Pontian not Pontic

This article should be renamed Pontians or Pontian Greeks. As a Pontian I can definitely guarantee that in English the term we use to define ourselves is "Pontian”. I have never referred to myself as a Pontic Greek in English and neither have I ever heard another English speaker do so. As this Wikipedia is meant to report "actual usage" and for "actual usage" in English, have a look at the name of any Pontian club, society, football team, restaurant etc in Australia, Canada or the USA. They all use simply "Pontian", with the "Greek" occasionally added for clarity or further identification. Normally “Greek” is superfluous as it’s implied. Much the same way as you would use Cretan or Cretan Greek.

In English the word “Pontic” tends to be used by academics to relate to the whole historical Black Sea littoral. When Greeks use the word, “Ποντιος/Pontios” in Greek and “Pontian” in English, they are specifically referring to those Greeks whose ancestors specifically originated from “Pontus/Pontos” (i.e. the Black Sea coast of north east Anatolia). They are not referring to Greeks from other parts of the Black Sea coasts (such as Thrace) unless they did actually originally hail from Pontus, such as the Greeks of Southern Russia.

Can someone please change the Tile. I have no idea how.--Nostham 14:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Name endings (-idis, -idou)

I'm not quite sure if this would be outside the scope of this article, but it might be interesting to add a short section about the common name endings in pontic names, since they are quite characteristic and a good indication of pontic decendance. Maybe one of the more versed contributers here might find this a worthwhile task? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.174.90.208 (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea--maybe Sam Topalidis has written a little about it.-Kravk (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

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)--

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) Deniz^T_C 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. Deniz^T_C 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? Deniz^T_C 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. Deniz^T_C 18:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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. Deniz^T_C 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(?)

Deniz^T_C 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. ”

Now please verify this with non-primary sources. Else we cannot have them. Especially not block quote them. Deniz^T_C 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). Deniz^T_C 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." Deniz^T_C 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)

References

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(?)

Deniz^T_C 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. Deniz^T_C 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. Deniz^T_C 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? Deniz^T_C 20:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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. Deniz^T_C 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)

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)

There is no such thing as a "Greek Pontian"

It was invented in 1922. These people are hellenophone Laz People. They are not Greek in any other (cultural,genetic) way... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.168.50 (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

They are indeed Greek and they have a history of over 2500 years in the region. They speak a unique variety of Greek with many features only present in this variety and traceable to Ancient Greek like the infinitive, many words, pronunciation of certain letter (e.g e for eta instead of i), evidence to the fact that they lived there for thousands of years and that they didn't just adapt the language. They have Greek customs. They always have been called Greek and there is a historical mention for them since the first colonisation of the area. Genetically they are some of Greek people that are closest to the Ancient Greeks with of course some other admixtures being present. The Laz on the other hand were Georgian Muslims that moved later to the area and became a distinct group called Laz. 62.228.197.211 (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Who cares if they're a mixture of Anatolians and Caucasians? They've been speaking Greek and have been embracing Hellenic for nearly 3000 years now, so what more do you want from them? 81.109.56.193 (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pontic Greeks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611151243/http://www.karalahana.com/english/omer_asan.htm to http://www.karalahana.com/english/omer_asan.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

sentence needs correction

"Those from Georgia, northeastern Anatolia, and the former Russian Caucasus are in contemporary Greek academic circles often referred to as "Eastern Pontic [Greeks]" or as Caucasian Greeks, but also include the Turkic-speaking Urums." The subject of the first verb "are ... referred to" is "Those from Georgia ...etc". Is this also the subject of the verb "include"? "Those from Georgia ... also include the Urums"? Doesn't make sense to me. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Pontic greeks are not georgian

Pontic greeks have nothing to do with georgians.they have nothing in common not even last names also in cyprus and greece georgians get mistaken as pontic greeks which again they are not. 31.153.42.48 (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

That's true, Pontic Greeks aren't Georgian. However, there is a significant diaspora in Georgia, hence the discussion of Pontians in Georgia and the Georgian name for Pontic Greeks. Kravk (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism and blanket reverts

First of Zenzyyx, please take a look at the version of the article before the edit war. [1] User "DroghedanAoife" changed the sentence from “ethnic Greeks” to “ethnic Caucasians” (as if Caucasians are an ethnos) without providing any sources. I hadn't touched that part of the article yet. Second, I provided quotes for the sentence "[the Matzouka] region alone contained Byzantine Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, Persians, Italians, Turks, Lazes, other Georgians. Some assimilated and married into Byzantine Greek families". The quote from the source, however, says "It is rather surprising that the Armenians in Matzouka were least numerous in comparison with Greeks, Lazs, Italians and Asians". As such, I fixed the sentence. In my first edit, I also removed the sentence "Romeika speakers, specifically those who speak the endangered Ophitic dialect, may descend from Turks, Caucasians, Greek colonists, or other groups who migrated to the Pontus" because it is not supported by the sources and especially the first source. Nevertheless, I kept it in the article in my recent edits because of accusations that I removed sources. Somehow, I still got accused of removing sources/info when I didn't do so. Last but not least, a source by the Department of History in the University of Western Macedonia is (apparently) considered unreliable and has been removed for the article for no compelling reason. Why is that? I advise you to self-revert. 2A02:1388:99:A414:D4F7:70E1:2201:9EE5 (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@2A02:1388:99:A414:D4F7:70E1:2201:9EE5

Firstly, there have been no blanket reverts. Anyone can feel free to review my edit summaries. Second, there has been no vandalism other than your edits. No one is removing sourced information (unlike yourself). Pontic Greeks are Greeks, no one is denying that. They are Caucasians, too (see Caucasus Greeks for more information). Yes, Caucasian isn't an ethnicity. I don't see anyone claiming it is. It's a race, and under said race lies many ethnicities, including Pontic Greeks.

Just because there were a few Armenians in the region doesn't mean you should completely remove the fact that Armenians inhabited the region; and on top of that, you removed the fact that Turks, Arabs, Persians and Georgians also lived in the region, for no reason. You are POV-pushing and, on top of that, you have relentlessly edit warred with two users, and are still continuing to do so. zenzyyx (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• "It's a race, and under said race lies many ethnicities, including Pontic Greeks". Do the reliable sources currently in the article say that Pontic Greeks are ethnic Greeks or ethnic Caucasians? The answer is the former.
• "No one is removing sourced information (unlike yourself)" Under the false pretense of me allegedly using an unreliable source, relevant info about Turkish-speaking Pontians and their identity got removed. I will simply assume ignorance, but it's very clear that not only did DroghedanAoife (and you, since you reverted me) remove unreliable sources, I also did not remove any sourced information (keyword: sourced) since you started editing the article.
• "Just because there were a few Armenians in the region doesn't mean you should completely remove the fact that Armenians inhabited the region; and on top of that, you removed the fact that Turks, Arabs, Persians and Georgians also lived in the region". 1) I didn't remove the fact that Armenians lived in the region. Read my edit again, carefully. 2) Yes I did remove the "fact" that Turks, Arabs, Persians and Georgians lived in the region because it wasn't a fact and it was not in the source and as such constitutes original research. 2A02:1388:99:A414:D4F7:70E1:2201:9EE5 (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  @2A02:1388:99:A414:D4F7:70E1:2201:9EE5

  They are ethnic Greeks, yes. I also realized that in the article it wrote "ethnic Caucasian people", I have removed the "ethnic" part, so rest assured that there are no longer any problems in that area.

  You did remove sourced information, such as the fact that Turks, Persians, and Arabs lived in the region. And you did change it to a "few Armenian people", so I will concede that you didn't completely remove the fact of their presence in the region.

  You have also removed the fact that Pontic Greek is an ethnicity, and replaced it with "self-identification". Overall, your edits are extremely unconstructive and as such constitutes vandalism. zenzyyx (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• "You did remove sourced information, such as the fact that Turks, Persians, and Arabs lived in the region". This isn't sourced. I gave the quote for this and explained why I remove it. The source clearly says "It is rather surprising that the Armenians in Matzouka were least numerous in comparison with Greeks, Lazs, Italians and Asians". It doesn't discuss Persians, Arabs or Georgians. The removal is completely acceptable, per WP:OR. It wasn't vandalism at all.
• "You have also removed the fact that Pontic Greek is an ethnicity, and replaced it with "self-identification"." Yes, I did. Because 1) ancestry & ethnicity are almost synonymous and 2) because the article discusses their self-identification (such as the Pontic Greek identification with other Greeks and with Greek nationalism in the 20th century). If you don't want the term "ethnicity" removed then I guess "ancestry, ethnicity and self-identification/identity" would be an apt header.
• You have not addressed why you removed this source during the process reverting my edits. It is discussing the identity of Turkish-speaking Pontic Greeks living in Western Macedonia, as such it's relevant to the section and, additionally, it's published by an academic source (University of Western Macedonia). I can provide quotes as well if requested. 2A02:1388:99:A414:D4F7:70E1:2201:9EE5 (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  @2A02:1388:99:A414:D4F7:70E1:2201:9EE5

  The fact stated is sourced by 4 pages of a book (pp. 89–93), and you most likely cherry-picked a single quote from the source. There is also the fact that the pages mentioned in the source cannot be accessed for free, so what you say can't entirely be trusted, and thus we have to refer to what the original statement says.

  The self-identification part is only briefly mentioned, the "ethnicity" and "ancestry" parts of the section is what makes the majority of it.

  The other section you mentioned has been removed because you've failed to mention that Stravros Gavriilidis *CLAIMS* the last sentence of what you wrote ("possibly due to the trauma they faced during and after the Greek genocide" should be turned into "Stravros Gavriilidis claims that this could be as a result of trauma caused by the Greek genocide" and so on. zenzyyx (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• I own a PDF copy of the book. First, the pages cited don't even correspond with the quote. My quote is from p. 177. Through the "find" function, I see that Matzouka is not mentioned in pages 89–93. It's mentioned fourteen times in p. 173, p. 174, p. 176, p. 177, p. 178 p. 180, p. 333, p. 335 & p. 338. Check it on Google Books if you can. WP:AGF.
• I guess I'll concede here. However, it's actually mentioned in 3 paragraphs which I wouldn't describe as brief (1st deals with self-identification as a whole, 2nd with Pontic identification with other Greeks and 3rd with Greek nationalism).
• Okay, Iwill reword it to attribute the claim after the dispute is solved. 2A02:1388:99:A414:D4F7:70E1:2201:9EE5 (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  @2A02:1388:99:A414:D4F7:70E1:2201:9EE5

  Please do not make changes to that part if it cannot be 100% proven. I unfortunately cannot assume good faith after this whole encounter.

  Other than that, I am happy to see that we agree on other parts. zenzyyx (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth here are pages 90–92 available from Google Books. 89 & 93 are unavailable. 2A02:1388:99:A414:D4F7:70E1:2201:9EE5 (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Eastern Anatolia is not an accepted term

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Eastern Anatolia is a term created in Ottoman Turkey and later used extensively from the Republic of Turkey. Geographically the area encompasses mostly the Armenian Highlands/Western Armenia. The term should not be used because historically there are many terms that were used for the area, because the term tries to link "Eastern Anatolia" to Anatolia in order to link Turks in Anatolia to "Eastern Anatolia" where Turks were a minority before the Armenian Genocide and still are in many parts, the term has political implications and is propagandistic, it tries to hide the presence of Armenians in the area, the Armenian Genocide, the term Western Armenia and everything related to people other than the Turks. 62.228.197.211 (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.