Talk:Turkish Cypriots/Archive 2

Indigenous?
There is no such thing as “indigenous Turkish Cypriots” as this article claims. The word “indigenous” is held EXCLUSIVELY by the first people who ever made contact with the land, and so far it appears to be the Choirokitians, ancestors of the modern day Greek Cypriots. Posted by: 192.168.1.100

The Greek Cypriots look identical with the Turkish Cypriots and they are not more indigenous than the Turkish speaking Cypriots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lycianhittite (talk • contribs) 23:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention
Shouldn't this be Turkish Cypriot, in agreement with Wikipedia naming convention? DJ Clayworth 20:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've always disagreed with that policy, as most pages don't seem to follow it. For example, shouldn't Native Americans be at Native Americans? &mdash; Khoikhoi 21:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Controversial?
I removed the controversial tag from the discussion page, as it was unneccessary at the moment. Might be added again later if the situation changes with the edits Javit 19:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

History Section
I've added a POV tag to this section as it rather blatantly represents solely the Greek Cypriot view. It should instead explain the history of the Turkish Cypriots in relation to the history of the Cyprus island. Javit 19:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but as a Greek Cypriot I find the History section quite offensive and very poorly referenced, indicating that a majority of the information not being facts. From academic sources that I have read, the origins of Turkish Cypriots are not clear cut at all, and if you wish to take it any further, the amount of soldiers and households are contested, along with the idea that they were of Turkic tribes. Not sure how one should proceed with it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.142.39 (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Cypurs Census of 1960
The actual 1960 Cyprus Census numbers are as follows: Greek Cypriots: 441,568 Maronites: 2,447 Armenians: 1,729 Turkish Cypriots: 103,813 British: 14,119 Gypsies: 444 Other: 1,393 Not Stated: 5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.142.39 (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet another Turkish Cypriot wiki article spreading manufactured rubbish to the world. The TCs will be lucky to tally around 150,000 worldwide. Here's your evidence... http://countrystudies.us/cyprus/21.htm Posted by: get_very_real@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.222.241 (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Names in Turkish and Greek
I added the Turkish and Greek versions of the name. Since my Turkish is elementary, please feel free to correct it. Should I have added it in the plural, i.e. "Türkler"? Also in the Greek Cypriot page should it be "Rumlar"? Teşekkürler. --Kupirijo (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry to change it back (Kıbrıslı to Kıbrıs), but please discuss any changes. --Kupirijo (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:FazılKüçük.jpg
The image Image:FazılKüçük.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --04:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Improvements required!
This article needs to be improved. I have recently finished improving the Turks in Germany, Turks in Austria and Turks in the Netherlands articles, and will now move onto this article. The more who help the better this artile will be. Thetruthonly (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Improvements required!
This article needs to be improved. I have recently finished improving the Turks in Germany, Turks in Austria and Turks in the Netherlands articles, and will now move onto this article. The more who help the better this artile will be. Thetruthonly (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done my best to help improve the article. However, I think that we now need to imporve the article on the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus; it's poorly written and referenced. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 11:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Population Figures
There are many things I disagree with in this article, but the population figures stick out the most. They are completely ridiculous. The thought of there being half a million Turkish Cypriots in Turkey is nothing short of comical. The figure for TCs in North Cyprus is wrong too; it is widely accepted among both Turkish and Greek Cypriots in Cyprus that the TCs are now a minority in the north. Anyone who has visited the north and knows enough about this topic to make a reasonable assessment can clearly see that TCs are outnumbered by Anatolian settlers. There is no way that almost 200,000 TCs live on the island of Cyprus - the actual figure is probably around half this. Come to think of it, I have doubts about there being 10,000 TCs in Germany too. I don't have the time to look up reliable sources and such at the moment, and in any case, I don't think I know enough about Wikipedia policy to do so anyway. Just thought I'd point out the obvious absurdities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Del1011 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well around 15% of the Turkish Cypriot population moved to Turkey in 1923, even more went between 1963-74. I just looked it up and found this which says that 300,000 Turkish Cypriots live in Turkey. But this source is outdated. It was published in 1983 (almost 30 years ago). Furthermore, it says that 70,000 Turkish Cypriots live in England- but most recent sources say it's between 200,000-250,000.


 * According to Star Kibris andKibris Postasi there are 400,000 Turkish Cypriots in London and 60,000 in Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.115.43 (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Please Change immediately population figures shown for Turkish Cypriots. Nubmer are invalid
User who has calculated purposely Turkish Cypriot population number to 1000000 is completely mistaken and completely ignorant with wrong information. Turkish Cypriot population worldwide is approximately reaching almost 250000. Please someone changes it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Economiesofscale (talk • contribs) 00:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please provide sources first. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 01:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Turks are Muslim's and the Boy's get Circumcised
Turkish boys are circumcised

Why did you delete it?

Dilek2 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have re-structured the sentence in the religion section. However, there is no need for this to be written in the census table. The Northern Cyprus census lists sexs under "male" and "female" not "male circumcised".  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 23:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I see it...you have re-structured. ??? Dilek2 (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it now says the following: "...However, religion still plays a role within the community; for example, Turkish Cypriot boys are circumcised at a young age due to religious reasons". Turco  85 ( Talk ) 17:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Holiest Sites in Islam
"In the 300 years of Ottoman rule in Cyprus, the Turks built mostly religious buildings on the island. Hala Sultan Tekke near the salt lake in Larnaka (which is considered to be the third holiest place for Muslims in the world[43][44][45]) and the Mevlevi Tekke in Nicosia are considered to be the most important two tekkes.[46]"

Hello,

I would like to ask where the evidence is to confirm the above statement about the Hala Sultan Tekke being considered as teh third holiest site for Muslims.

The agreed first holiest site is the Masjid al-Haram in Makkah, Saudi Arabia. The agreed second holiest site in Islam is Al-Masjid al-Nabawi (The Prophet's SAW Mosque) in Al-Madinah Al Munnawarah, Saudi Arabia. The agreed third holiest site in Islam is Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa on Jerusalem, Palestine.

Kind Regards,

Ambssa Ambssa (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:POV-check
I have now removed this template. All material in the histroy section is referenced. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 11:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Turks should leave Cyprus and let Greek Cypriots be at peace and try to build an alliance with them and help rebuild their economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.30.200 (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Collage
The collage in the infobox is repeatedly changed with a file which has two people killed by the Turkish Resistance Organization (TMT) in the first row. The author justifies this edit by saying that the people which he removes have no relation with Cyprus. On the contrary, I think that this does not change the fact that they are Turkish Cypriot, and that adding to the first row of the collage two people who were killed by TMT might have political meanings. --Seksen (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Now, after opening the RfC, I am presenting my arguments in detail, by analyzing the people in the old collage (which should be restored until the community decides to change it in this discussion, see WP:CYCLE) that were removed.
 * Kıbrıslı Mehmed Kamil Pasha - an Ottoman grand vizier (equivalent to the modern prime minister), has the word Kıbrıslı (Cypriot) in his name
 * Kaytazzade Mehmet Nazım - a leading poet, he lived in Cyprus
 * Fatih Terim - former manager of the Turkish national football team, half-Cypriot, this is the only one who I agree with change (maybe with Mehmet Ali Talat)
 * Alparslan Türkeş - former leader of the third biggest political party in Turkey, lived his first 16 years in Cyprus

--Seksen (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all I just want to copy what "Seksen iki yüz kırk beş" said ın previous message: "The author justifies this edit by saying that the people which he removes have no relation with Cyprus. On the contrary, I think that this does not change the fact that they are Turkish Cypriot". I really did not get the point in this sentence. This sentence shows the paradox that the Turkish Cypriot page has had.

The people (which I have changed) from old college are not representing Turkish Cypriots, some of them were not born in Cyprus and some of the other ones did not even live most of their life on the island. We can easily see that on these people's wikipedia page they are valued as Turks more than Turkish Cypriots.


 * Kıbrıslı Mehmed Kamil Pasha - The reason that I changed Kıbrıslı Mehmed Kamil Pasha is as you can see on his information (which author wrote) that he was an Ottoman grand vizier. He does not hold any value within Turkish Cypriot culture or history. The person that I replaced him with Derviş Ali Kavazoğlu, a modern time Cypriot politician who has an important part in Turkish Cypriot Culture and has a value for Turkish Cypriots. One can see easily the political purpose to change this Cypriot value with an outdated Ottoman vizier.


 * Kaytazzade Mehmet Nazım - The second person that I changed is Kaytazzade Mehmet Nazım. The reason that I change him with Fazıl Önder is because he is also an outdated Ottoman poet who does not hold any value for the Cypriot culture. I exchanged him with the important Cypriot Journalist who, unlike Kaytazzade Mehmet Nazım, is valuable for Cypriot history.

The author of the previous post accuses me to have put them up because they were assassinated by the TMT. But how can I change the way two important historical figure for Turkish Cypriots died and how is it rational to blame me for it and exchange these people with two outdated Ottoman figures.


 * Fatih Terim - The third person which I changed is Fatih Terim the world famous "Turkish" football manager who was born in Turkey (only father Turkish Cypriot), who never lived in Cyprus, played in and managed the Turkish football clubs, managed the Turkish National Football team and defines himself Turkish. I replaced him with Hal Ozsan, a world famous actor and singer who was born in Famagusta, is of Turkish Cypriot descent and represents Turkish Cypriots across the world with his Turkish Cypriot identity.


 * Alparslan Türkeş - The last and most remarkable change is Alparslan Türkeş who was born in Cyprus but at a young age went to Turkey, joined the Turkish army and become one of/the biggest leaders of the "Turkish Ultra-Nationalist Far Right" organizations Grey Wolves and Nationalist Movement Party. This person never defined himself as a Cypriot and is not valued by Turkish Cypriot but rather seen as anti-sempatic. I changed this person with the Second President of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat.

I can easily see that author of this collage is a Turkish person who made this collage under his political ideology. One can see in the previous collage that the selected people were selected upon the basis of having a Right-wing ideology and with this purpose in mind the author dug deeply to find people with a faint relation, just to fulfill the criteria of posting right-wing people with relation to Turkey and Ottomans. But this important article which represents a Nation includes people without relevance to this Nation and with no value or meaning within this nation. The Collage which I have created does not heed any attention to the people's political ideology and selected more relevant figured of Turkish Cypriot culture.

This author's collage does not represent Wikipedias purpose of having truthful and accurate posts and objectives. Ghuzz (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I am not the author of that collage. If Kavazoğlu is that important, why do we get only 4 hits for him in Turkish Google Books. He is not like Özker Özgür, for example.

If Fazıl Önder's newspaper, İnkılapçı, is so important, why does it get only one hit? Why not Mehmet Remzi Okan, founder of the newspaper Söz, which is far more popular in reliable sources?

In the case of Fatih Terim, I totally agree with you. And for the removal of Alparslan Türkeş (and either Kaytazzade or Kamil Pasha), I would not refuse it if a better proposal is made.

So, here are my proposals:
 * Derviş Eroğlu (this image might do if cropped)
 * İrsen Küçük
 * Ahmet Mithat Berberoğlu
 * Mehmet Remzi Okan (he died in 1922, so this photograph of him is free)
 * Tahsin Ertuğruloğlu (tr)
 * Serdar Denktaş

--Seksen (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So you think we should have just a bunch of politicians in the info box? Typical Turkish Cypriot mind I guess. I think it's best to have a range of people regardless or where they are born, their gender, their occupation, etc.  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 10:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If we just had more photos of non-politicians... --Seksen (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would prefer not having so many politicians; I don't see why we need Dervis Eroglu, Mehmet Ali Talat, and Serdar Denktas etc. What makes Fatih Terim any less a Turkish Cypriot than Tracey Emin or Leon Osman? Just because he was born in Turkey it does not make him any "less" a Turkish Cypriot. If he did not acknowledge his Cypriot roots why would he speak about it in interviews? I don't think we are in a position to judge who is a "true" Turkish Cypriot, at the end on the day it's about self-identification.  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 14:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's talk about the words "fled" Vs "moved"
The article says : "After the Turkish invasion and the ensuing 1975 Vienna agreements, 60,000 Turkish Cypriots who lived in the south of the island fled to the north"

HelenOfOz writes : NPOV, changed from "fled" to "moved" because it happened a year after the ceasfire and it was not done under duress.) E4024, if the Turkish Cypriots "fled" then why didn't they flee in the period between the cease-fire of 1974 to the 1975 Vienna agreements ? In other words, what were Turkish Cypriots fleeing in 1975 that wasn't there previously to cause them to flee ?

HelenOfOz (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article to explain the shared DNA
There is nothing in the article to explain why Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots look like each other. They have much shared DNA, don't they ? They are genetically much closer to each other than their respective "motherlands". There is also no mention about the Linobamvaki either. HelenOfOz (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "nothing in the article to explain why Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots look like each other". That sounds like unencyclopedic WP:OR. Before this goes any further can you put forward some WP:RS on this please. DeCausa (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Was Kutlu Adalı assassinated by the Turkish Revenge Brigade?
User:TremoloKid wants to add this detail to the article, but the source he used appears not to meet WP:RS very well. Has this fact been verified to be true? For example, was there a court trial of members of the Turkish Revenge Brigade, in which they were found guilty, that might have been reported on in the newspapers? I'm opening this discussion to see if there is consensus that this fact has been verified. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wrote source in edit page but I guess it didnt showed up. Im writing here few sources that I found out even in 5 minutes. Basicaly all articles about Turkish Revenge Brigade admit that they are responsible for killing of Kutlu Adalı. Articles(Turkish): Milliyet: http://gazetearsivi.milliyet.com.tr/Kutlu%20Adal%C4%B1/ Cumhuriyet: http://www.cumhuriyetarsivi.com/katalog/192/sayfa/1996/7/9/3.xhtml Zaman: http://www.zaman.com.tr/haber.do;jsessionid=B4B40295DD0008C53867221ECA8747E8?haberno=439127 Evrensel: http://www.evrensel.net/v2/haber.php?haber_id=41996 Also: http://books.google.com/books?id=HBy9n7DncA8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Journalists+in+Peril&source=bl&ots=mTbqJaCe87&sig=YNzkZ-JOP37qIFgwcR_AKUOGkr8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oDYoUKXhFers2gX154G4Cw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Kutlu&f=false -(TremoloKid (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC))
 * Also E4024 user changed article again. I guess he also needs to join talk here before he do that. And everybody can see his purpose is different. Now he changed article with saying "Kutlu Adalı isnt famous because of he assassinated". Basicaly he changed his argument again for manupulate wikipedia article with his turkish nationalist ideological perspective. Is it normal in Wikipedia? And yes this Cypriot Author is famous now because of he assassinated. Everybody can figure it out even when they google his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TremoloKid (talk • contribs) 23:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

RE : Indigenous Turkish Cypriots
How on earth are Turkish Cypriots "indigenous" to Cyprus or the Mediterranean ? If Turkish Cypriots are "ethnic Turks" then they are indigenous to Central Asia, not the Mediterranean. I propose to remove the word "indigenous". HelenOfOz (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Turkish Cypriots are Central Asian; very wisely said. I agree to and remove the word "indigenous". It is good we have users that see these details... --E4024 (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The first thing should change in this page is the sentence that "Turkish Cypriots are ethnically Turk" and other sentence who have similar ideology. My family is Linobamvaki and today big amount percentage of people who identify themselves as a Turkish Cypriot is Linobamvaki origin. There are a lot of source available about it and we should think about how to change this article more reliable (Ghuzz (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC))

Indigenous is a pernicious word and should be avoided generally, IMO. How long does a people have to be resident to be indigenous: more than 50 years? More than 500 years? More than a 1000 years? More than 5000 years? The only place humans are really indigenous is the Rift Valley in East Africa! As far as "indigenous to Central Asia" is concernd: culturally perhaps - linguistic origin etc. But isn't the modern viewpoint that most of the ancestors of the modern Turkish population were in Anatolia prior to the arrival of the Turks? Regarding the Linobamvaki - ethnicity should be about what reliable sources say concerning ethnic self-identification. DeCausa (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, you are right. Reliable sources. Lets look together what we have here. When you open Turkish Cypriots page, first section full of words like "Turk, Turkic, ethnically Turkish". Even just looking that we can realize that this page is fully vandalized by Turkish nationalists with giving some Turk researchers, writers as a reference. Ok sounds good. But I guess this is not way to use Wikipedia (If I'm wrong please just let me know, because as I can see you are so much old and experienced user). On the other hand person like me (totally amateur on computers and internet stuff) can find sources like this (http://www.cult-interculturaltrainings.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=20&Itemid=23) in 15 seconds on internet. Source which looks more objective than Turkish writers, from project which funded with support from the European Commission. And this kind of reliable and looks real sources says "In fact, the majority of today’s Turkish-Cypriots are in fact Islamised Christians or Linobambaki, who had originally been Greek-Cypriots, Armenian-Cypriots, Maronite-Cypriots or Latin-Cypriots, which explains their physical differences with mainland Turks, their regular visits to monasteries and churches, the consumption of wine and pork, the fact that the majority of their villages did not have Turkish names - some even carried the name Ayios (Saint) - and the fact that the majority of them did not speak Turkish until the mid-20th century (with the exception of the ones who resided in the cities). Regarding ethnically Turk - Also again with another 10 seconds you can reach independent scientific researches (from non-Turk science people) like this (http://www.cyprusupdates.com/2012/01/greek-cypriots-and-turkish-cypriots-more-similar-than-we-think/) and can questionnaire one Wikipedia article easily and realize that this article not only vandalized, also raped. Everybody can write book or research paper of course. But as a Wikipedia users when we edit one article we need to use reliable, independent and trust giving sources (for example we need to use international papers which funded from serious organizations as a source for articles like this rather than some turkish papers) As I said I'm not old and experienced like you. And I guess this article really need help from users who have enough experience and know how to use Wikipedia. Here is talk page. And I think we can make this article more reliable and suitable with Wikipedia rules all together. (Ghuzz (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism (Turco85)
Can someone please look last 10-15 edit of the page? This article probably can be candidate for most vandalized article in wikipedia. And most of them did by Turco85. Information with sources deleted and article obviously vandalized with Turkish Nationalist ideology. (Ghuzz (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)) I'm sorry not last 15, last 50 edit which he did in 3 days!! (Ghuzz (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC))
 * Vandalism?!.. --E4024 (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, before writing this kind of expressions, have a look to edits. It would be more constructive. Yes vandalism. You start with look edit in 27th September. (Ghuzz (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC))
 * Article updated with new sources. And reliability of article with new sources two old info deleted. One is: "Turkish Cypriots are ethnic Turks living in the Eastern Mediterranean island of Cyprus." ETHNIC Turks term is not suitable with new infos and their sources. And also: "The fact that Turkish was the main language spoken by the Muslims of the island is a significant indicator that the majority of them were either Turkish speaking Anatolians or otherwise from a Turkic background" sentence havent got a strong foundation. Because there are lots of other research say that Turkish language majority of Turkish Cypriots did not speak Turkish until the mid-20th century. ex:http://www.cult-interculturaltrainings.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=20&Itemid=23 (Ghuzz (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC))
 * If you seriously believe there is "vandalism" here please go to the AIV. --E4024 (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Can you please tell your argument about why previous one was better? You cant change article like just saying "that one is better". Is it true? Also why in here when we trying to do our edits we need to go everytime to the AIV and you guys not. Even though the edits that we do has more and reliable sources than yours? Does Turkish Nationalist has some privilege at Wikipedia? (Ghuzz (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC))

New Section on humorous arguments
Sorry, I could not write below a title with DNA; feels like Nazi Germany... Attention: "their physical differences with mainland Turks, their regular visits to monasteries and churches, the..." So we, mainland Turks, we have one definite physical appearence? (When are you planning to disclose that the blond Turks are in fact Swedish? :-) Visits to monasteries and churches? The first thing I do wherever I go, of course only after checking in at the hotel, and seeing the cathedral... These arguments are really sympathetic, especially together with the one about Turkish privileges in WP! You made my day, thanks... :-) --E4024 (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree with your underlying point, this is not a constructive or helpful way to express it and only causes unnecessary drama. DeCausa (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Recently, the discussion page has been talking about the introduction. There is so many contraditions here which is really quite annoying:
 * "User:HelenOfOz created sub-heading "RE : Indigenous Turkish Cypriots" and argued that the term "indigenous" should be removed from the introduction
 * User:Ghuzz goes on to create "Vandalism (Turco85)"... well I can't be bothered to even waste my time with a rebuttal.
 * Same user goes on to create "Origins, Converts from Christianity, Linobamvakis, DNA???". I agree with User:DeCausa here. DNA and ethnicity is not the same thing. Ethnicity is clearly constucted and whoever things they are "100%" x of "pure-blooded" y is the true "nationalist".
 * At the end of the day I am a Turkish Cypriot and Ghuzz clearly is not, by their arguments per above. So how can we [Turkish Cypriots] not be indigenous to the island and yet at the same time be converted Greeks. This whole argument is a joke. If anything it's the today's Greek Cypriots who probably have more mixture within them considering all the empires who have colonised Cyprus. I am removing the claim that Turkish Cypriots can be divided into "two groups" because that is actually offensive. There is not "two types of Turkish Cypriots" one the "converted" and the other "pure". The Turkish Cypriots have evloved over time through religion and nationalism, which is clearly written in the history section anyway. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 14:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to also bring to everyones attention the 1881 Cyprus census which stated that 95% of Muslim inhabitants spoke the Turkish language. Surely, official census' plus numerous academic sources clearly does not make the version I have reverted it to as POV. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 14:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * One final comment, it might also be possible that User:Ghuzz is a sockpuppet of User:23x2. I only say this because on User:FisherQueen's talk page Ghuzz has stated that "Basically I did some edits on page" (see here ) when in fact Ghuzz has only edited once on the article. Furthermore, both users objective was to change the introduction at about the same period of time. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 14:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like I need to make one last comment [again], I can't believe a publication called "Hot spot: North America and Europe" is overriding publications which are actually about the Turkish Cypriot community. "My version" of the introduction already says "many of the islanders converted to Islam during the early years of Ottoman rule." so I don't see what the problem is. The fact is that most sources show that most Turkish Cypriots are of Anatolia descent and official censuses by the Britisih administration show that the Muslim inhabitants spoke [as well as identified themeselves with] Turkish. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 15:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I really got tired to talk same things. I give up too. As a Turkish Cypriot with Linobamvaki origin who lives in this island (Im saying this too because of Turco85's argument about me) looking the article of the society that i know and all i can see subjective writings with poor sources and nationalist ideological perspective. Same stories in every article, turkish users bore all others and do what they want. No reliable sources, no abjectivity, no reality. Keep enjoying (Ghuzz (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

Origins, Converts from Christianity, Linobamvakis, DNA???
In 27th September Turco85 deleted edits which 23x3 did with saying "not stated in source given" and he had point because in article there wasn't specific information about which nationalities formed part of todays Turkish Cypriot community. Bu after that Turco85 little went further and changed almost all first section of article. And articles looking of today and 27th September has really big differences.

Basically current article doesn't have any detailed info about Linobamvaki origin of Turkish Cypriots and converts from Christianity in island.

Today I realized this situation and find more articles which support version of 23x3 and edited article like and old version. But user E4024 turned back article to Turco85s version with saying "Previous edition was better so I reverted".

The reliable sources that I found (eg: Republic of Cyprus Reports and Research from Project which funded from European Commission) and articles todays informations doesn't fits. And we need to find way to solve this problem.

My argument:

1. We can't write Turkish Cypriots are ethnic Turks living in… because Linobamvaki people are core of Turkish Cypriot society today.

2. Also info about Turkish language and Turkic background is historically not reliable.

Please look (If you have time please read whole articles, i didn't copy paste all of them for don't make it so long) and also you can find lots of research and sources about this subjects:


 * Cyprus Government Website, Maronite Community: http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/MOI/pio/pio.nsf/All/ED662F2A7A8231EDC2256FCE0032C789?

''By 1636, the situation for the Christians in Cyprus had become intolerable and the conversions to Islam began. "Since not everyone could stand the pressures of the new situation, those unable to resist converted to Islam and became crypto-Christians. They were called Linobambaci - a composite Greek word that means men of linen and cotton, a metaphorical term referring to the dual nature of their religious beliefs. The Maronites who adopted Islam lived mainly in Louroujina in the district of Nicosia. (Palmieri 1905: col. 2468). However, these Maronites who had converted in despair did not fully denounce their Christian faith. They kept some beliefs and rituals, hoping to denounce their 'conversion' when the Ottomans left. For example, they baptized and confirmed their children according to Christian tradition, but administered circumcision in conformity with Islamic practices. They also gave their children two names, one Christian and one Muslim (Hackett 1901: 535; Palmieri 1905: cols. 2464, 2468).''


 * Cult-Intercultural Trainings (Project funded with support from European Commission]: http://www.cult-interculturaltrainings.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=20&Itemid=23

In fact, the majority of today’s Turkish-Cypriots are in fact Islamised Christians or Linobambaki, who had originally been Greek-Cypriots, Armenian-Cypriots, Maronite-Cypriots or Latin-Cypriots, which explains their physical differences with mainland Turks, their regular visits to monasteries and churches, the consumption of wine and pork, the fact that the majority of their villages did not have Turkish names - some even carried the name Ayios (Saint) - and the fact that the majority of them did not speak Turkish until the mid-20th century (with the exception of the ones who resided in the cities).


 * The Genetic Heritage of Cypriots in light of 20 years of Research: http://www.cyprusupdates.com/2012/01/greek-cypriots-and-turkish-cypriots-more-similar-than-we-think/

Also I just saw that in this Talk Page there were other users also mentioned this situations before me. This problem needs to be solved urgently, because this Wikipedia article is so far away from objectivity and reality with this version. (Ghuzz (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC))


 * Ghuzz: you are confusing "ethnicity" and genetic ancestry, which are not the same thing. As far as ethnicity is concerned, the question is how do Turkish Cypriots self-declare: is it as Turks, Linobambaki or something else. The sources you provide don't touch that. With regard to the first source, you are using it to found claims about genetic ancestry and then converting it into an ethnicity claim. That's not a justified use of the source. It doesn't say how today's Turkish Cypriot's regard their ethnicity. It doesn't even say that because their genetic ancestry is X their ethnicity is X. The second source comes closer but is frankly nonsense and not credible on the face of it and can't be regarded as a reliable source. The statement "which explains their physical differences with mainland Turks, their regular visits to monasteries and churches" sounds like some primitive 19th century quasi-racist anthropology and has no place here. You may be right that Turkish Cypriots don't regard themselves as ethnic Turks - I genuinely don't know (although it seems an unlikely proposition). But you need to drop the genetic/DNA nonsense and find direct sources that explicitly say Turkish Cypriots consider their ethnicity to be X. DeCausa (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * DeCausa: I guess I didnt manage to explain my idea properly. I just wrote DNA research article to support the idea which before me other users asked about it too. I guess Im writing too much and because of subject going out of point. But basically my question is (from begining): Why on this page there isnt any information about core of this society Linobamvaki or other converts from Christianity? (There was but someone deleted it) And only has Turk, Turkic, Turkish. And Isnt article with this looking so far away reality and objectivity? And yes Turkish Cypriot society dont regard themselves as ethnic Turks (please everybody who little reads the news knows it). And there are hundreds of researches, books, articles about their origins. And please (E4024 also wrote some constructive and nice stuff under this title) in science (anthropology) there is something called typology, of course physical differences use for one way to differentiate societies. And have a look first part of article for see something racist, there are only 3-4 sentence and i dont know how many Turk, Turkish, Turkic and what can be more racist than Turkic. Im sorry but that looks just funny when I see this things instead of Linobamvaki and Christian converts in Turkish Cypriots article and also ideological. In old version of article and my edit I tried to wrote there two ideas together. Isnt in wikipedia it sposed to be? (It was like that before me some point too, dont be angry with me, I didnt write that :) Or should we leave it like this? (Ghuzz (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC))
 * Ok, I understand now. It would help if you stuck to the point rather go into emotive "other stuff". I've taken a look at the lead and the version you wanted to keep and concluded that:
 * the new version is better written for the lead in terms of flow and level of detail per WP:LEAD
 * But, I think that the last two sentences are unsupported by the sources. Firstly, in "your" version the last cited source (Rudolph) supported the proposition that the converts and settlers jointly were the two origins to today's Turkish Cypriot's. However, it's been left in place in the new version in a way that makes it look as though it supports the proposition that the origin is predominantly settlers. Secondly, the new version in the penultimate says that because Turkish is now their language then their ancestry must be from Anatolian Turks. I don't have access to the source, but I do not believe it can have said that - it's too illogical. (There are obviously many reasons why the politically dominant language would have been spoken by Muslim converts.) It also contradicts the Rudolph source referred earlier.
 * In light of the above, I have kept the "new" version, but returned the last sentence to "your" version (and in accordance with the Rudolph source) but deleted the dubious penultimate sentence. DeCausa (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, Turco85 has pointed out to me (on my talk page) that, having checked the Rudolph citation, it makes no reference to the origins of Turkish Cypriots. It would seem therefore that the source was previously mis-used in the old version and best got rid of altgother. DeCausa (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Re. File:Cypriot (Turkish) Muslim woman 1878.jpg

 * p. 1
 * p. 2
 * source

Can it be safely assumed that she's Turkish? It's not explicitly said that she is in the book. Did Greek and Turkish Cypriot women dress very differently at the time? — Lfdder (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Propaganda article, hiding all the truths
This article as well as the one for North Cyprus, is a turkish propaganda article, hiding all the truths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talk • contribs) 21:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Famous_turkish_cypriots.jpg?
Let's be serious and include people who are undeniable Turkish Cypriot, for example Sevgül Uludağ, instead of adding people like Leon Osman, who was born in England, had lived all his life in England, and had played for the English national team. Yes, he could have Turkish Cypriot origins, but he aint Turkish Cypriot, so please remove him from that collage. Regards,-- HC PUNX  KID 14:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine
An IP removed the population figure of 4,000 in Palestine; I would presume the reasons are related to Israel-Palestine political quarrel, but nonetheless, it was based on crappy sourcing: after a brief research, it seems to be based on this short article from Turkish daily newspaper Sabah (Google translate), stating that About 4 thousand Turkish girl, according to the records between 1920 and 1950, were sold by their families to the Palestinian Arabs. Even if true, that hardly means that their descents live in "Palestine" (however it is defined) today, 70-90 years later, and that they have any trace of "Turkish Cypriot" identity. No such user (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've included an academic source plus a footnote stating that this only includes the Turkish Cypriot women who were sold.  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 12:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is not OK. Infobox populations should only display contemporary, non-disputed figures from RS such as censuses. Adding 4,000 people from a ~100-year migration is pure original research, with or without the footnote (besides, what is "Palestine" today?). I do not doubt the veracity of the women-selling story, and thank you for the new source, but it should go the body of the article, in #Palestine section, where it is properly covered in prose. No such user (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, do you object to "Palestine" being in the info box, the population estimate, or both? A compromise could be to have Palestine in the info box but to state that the contemporary population is unknown, whilst placing the 4,000 figure in the footnote of the info box. Having said that, there was also migration to Jordan so perhaps we could place it as "Arab world" and then "unknown" or something?  Turco  85  ( Talk ) 13:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Turkish Cypriots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110718165207/http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/Volume5/September-November2000/SalahiSonyel.pdf to http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/Volume5/September-November2000/SalahiSonyel.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Turkish Cypriots. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/Volume5/September-November2000/SalahiSonyel.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Turkish Cypriots. 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/20111103083632/http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/europe/turkey-cyprus/cyprus/210%20Cyprus%20-%20Bridging%20the%20Property%20Divide.ashx to http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/europe/turkey-cyprus/cyprus/210%20Cyprus%20-%20Bridging%20the%20Property%20Divide.ashx
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/60cAVudfH?url=http://www.kibrisgazetesi.com/index.php/cat/1/col/119/art/17680/PageName/Ana_sayfa to http://www.kibrisgazetesi.com/index.php/cat/1/col/119/art/17680/PageName/Ana_sayfa
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721144320/http://www.kibrisgazetesi.com/printa.php?col=119&art=9711 to http://www.kibrisgazetesi.com/printa.php?col=119&art=9711
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-931666-turkish-and-proud-to-be-here.do
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/multilingual/turkish.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726223113/http://www.kibristakulturmucadelesi.org/Kitaplar/dosya/Ahmet%20An%20-%20Origins%20of%20Turkish%20Cypriots%20and%20their%20culture.pdf to http://www.kibristakulturmucadelesi.org/Kitaplar/dosya/Ahmet%20An%20-%20Origins%20of%20Turkish%20Cypriots%20and%20their%20culture.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Frankish
This is the English Wikipedia. In English, the word Frank and its linguistic counterpart and adjective Frankish refer to a Germanic tribe which became Latinized and Christianized, and eventually gave its name to France. There were never very many Franks in Cyprus. What Frankish may refer to in some other context isn't a concern for the English Wikipedia. To insist on non-standard English use for a somewhat politicized subject approaches serious disruptive editing. Tapered (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No need for such a strict interpretation. The use of the word "Franks" is well-established in literature on Cyprus (e.g. in The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades by Edbury, published by Cambridge University Press). Franks makes the intended meaning clear enough, no need to needlessly look for political undertones. Not using the word "Frankish" would amount to refusing to follow the literature in the case of Cyprus. --GGT (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Translated to greek
The article has just been translated to Greek. I 'd like to thank all editors, the article is concise, readable and well-referenced. Cheers!,Τζερόνυμο (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It is not, and I started deleting users' interpretations in the english and greek text.--Skylax30 (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

That's what it says in the cited academic article, hence, they stay in. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Futher, I removed the part that was added here as it leads into conclusions. Beckingham states:"In Cyprus religious and linguistic divisions do not quite coincide. While many Turks habitually speak Turkish there are 'Turkish', that is, Muslim villages in which the normal language is Greek; among them are Lapithiou (P i), Platanisso (F i), Ayios Simeon (F i) and Galinoporni (F i). This fact has not yet been adequately investigate. With the growth of national feeling and the spread of education the phenomenon is becoming not only rarer but harder to detect. In a Muslim village the school teacher will be a Turk and will teach the children Turkish. They already think of themselves as Turks, and having once learnt the language, will sometimes use it in talking to a visitor in preference to Greek, merely as a matter of national pride. On the other hand many Turks, whose mother tongue is Turkish, learn Greek because they find it useful to understand the language of the majority, though it is much less common for them to write it correctly. I don't feel confortable to add some facts that have not been adequately investigated and might mislead some readers. I feel it provokes the reader to jump into (a probably wrong) conclusion.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Τζερόνυμο, WP doesn't care about your feelings as a user. If Charles Fraser Beckingham did not "adequately investigated" his subject, you may do your investigation and publish it in an academic journal.--Skylax30 (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Beckingham touches upon what might be a manifestation of either conversion or the Linobambaki, though we cannot be sure. This is also covered in the article on Linobambaki and I would say that that article takes more liberty than it should in interpreting sources, but that is a different matter. As you get further into specific details and investigate in various sources, the generalisation fades out. For instance, Bağışkan compiles in this article the various theories about the origin of the villagers of Platanisso, and these do not necessarily all contain conversion or a Linobambaki origin. The British census figures in this article indicate anyway that Greek-speaking Muslims were a small minority of Turkish Cypriots back in the 19th century - and indeed, these were only a handful of villages, especially in the Tylliria/Dillirga region (the recently published two-volume Dillirga by Orhan Oydaş adds some interesting insight to this, although we need to look for proper ethnological studies). In short, this phenomenon can be covered in this article, but utmost vigilance needs to be exercised, especially regarding WP:DUE and WP:PRIMARY. --GGT (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand your point GGT. What kind of "vigilance" are you suggesting, and who is going to exercise it? I added few secondary sources mentioning greek-speaking Turks. If you have other sources about how many they were etc, you can add them in the article. Are you by any chance suggesting that we, users, have the right to criticize top academics like Beckingham? And what is the relevance of that Bağışkan's article in an obscure site, describing a particular village? Notice also, how one user (Τζερονυμο) is deleting Beckingham, demanding "consensus", in a way indicating that we need his permition to include the source in the article.--Skylax30 (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Bağışkan is one of the most prolific Turkish Cypriot experts of antiquity, his work on Ottoman Cyprus is excellent and widely cited (including in academia and on Wikipedia). The "random website" he is writing for is Yenidüzen, one of the most prominent and reliable Turkish Cypriot newspapers.
 * Beckingham was conducting a primary field study. He had little available literature to consult and stressed that the matter had not been fully investigated. And that was 60 years ago, when the literature on such topics was much, much more limited. He is by all means a very reputable scholar, but I suggest that you familiarise yourself with WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY and the guidelines about the choice of sources.
 * The 2014 work that you cited is very good and very interested, and I sincerely thank you for that - have added it to my reading list :) Here is what vigilance means: this is a very politicised and sensitive issue. That requires utmost attention to make sure that we reflect the entirety of the literature. I understand your bona fide intentions and the existence of some Greek-speaking T/Cs should probably be mentioned. But please also familiarise yourself with WP:DUE. We should make it clear that this was not the norm in the T/C community and clearly dissociate this from Turkish Cypriot ethnogenesis. The 2014 source you have cited, for instance, has other content about the limited nature of this phenomenon. I suggest that you reflect this fully.
 * What Tzeronymo is referring to is WP:BRD. His initial revert was in line with established editing rules, your revert of his revert was not. --GGT (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. The paragraph we are trying to develop is about language. It is clear that the majority of TC speak turkish as main language, and if this is not adequately expressed in the article, it can be. The "due weight" doesn't mean that the 99% of the paragraph should repeat the obvious, that the Turks speak Turkish. Generally, much of scientific literature focuses on peculiarities, if scientists judge that these have some value. So, the fact that some Turks speak (or use to speak) mainly Greek seems to be scientifically important, and this has to be reflected in the article. If you feel that we should stress that "Most Turks speak Turkish", please do it. About this Bakisgan's article, I don't see any relevant info there, but you may add it if there is any. Of course the road opens for greek sources, as well.

The other that you deleted is well sourced, as you will see soon. Consider the article "under improvement".--Skylax30 (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

And some more on Beckingham: 60 years ago the phenomenon was present and the older the source, the better, if we are to judge the author. But we are not supposed to do it. His opinion that "the issue is not adequately researched", probably refers to the past, i.e. before his research, and is a commonality in many scientific papers. Every scientist can claim that he progresses the research. This is my interpreatation of that line, but I don't mind if it is quoted alluding to your interpretation. However, you cannot use your interpretation in order to delete the whole reference. If you dissagree, we can make use of the mediation process.--Skylax30 (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Skylax30, you have claimed in the past that you got many sources available but haven't seen any. (translation: I can easily provide 10 sources that shake down the impression that Turkish-Cypriot came from Mongolia). I agree with the comments of GGT. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I thought I didn't need many sources to disprove your "Turkic phyla" claim, Tzeronymo. Just one genetic paper kept you very busy, as I noticed. However, I don't understand why don't you feel happy having natural brothers on the other side.--Skylax30 (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * That paper, conducted by Alexandros Heraclides, was very interesting, but does little to support to your thesis, that Tcypriots are islamized Gcypriots. It was not designed for that purpose after all. As for me, even though is irrelevant to this talk page, I feel I don't need to skew science in order to support my belief in the brotherhood of Man.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah, OK. Keep on believing.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Ofcourse I will, as it is founded on science, it 's not a religious belief, founded on ....you know....Τζερόνυμο (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh thanks for that Tzeronymo. I knew that "Racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity". That's why I prefer "ancestry", as it is suggested in the penultimate paragraph of the nice article you found. Cheers!--Skylax30 (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * That's a step forward.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Btw, you don't built "concensus" by canvassing users from a particular nationality. You only expose your POV push. Good luck.--Skylax30 (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC) (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What? 1) Why do you think that you have the right to comment on my nationality? 2) You do realise that as a long-time contributor of this article (and related ones), this is on my talk page, right? If I don't comment at any point, it's either because I choose not to or because I don't have the time to. You are the one who showed up trying to add outdated literature to push a point when Tzeronymo translated the article. Now I don't have enough time to evaluate and comment nowadays so regarding the content at the moment, I'll pass. --GGT


 * Sorry but I didn't "comment" on your nationality. I assumed that you are of a particular nationality, and this is not any offence. For WP, belonging or not belonging to any nationality is ethically neutral. On the point, the particular literature is not outdated, as it is cited by many authors up to 2016 . If however you have any source claiming that this is outdated, let us know. --Skylax30 (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No, you did more than that, exposing your POV once more. Nevertheless, I am going to take it this to Dispute resolution if everybody agrees Τζερόνυμο (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree.--Skylax30 (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Is being in life a matter?
May I ask Skylax30, what is the point of the question in the edit summury?Τζερόνυμο (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The point is that "population" refers to present. Not to 19th century.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Infobox provides the appropriate info as it should. If you have a better source, please share. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Why trying to hide information about Linobambaki in this article?
I can see that many people indicated the fact that Turkish Cypriots article is like a propaganda instrument Turkish nationalist Wikipedia users. This article does not have a proper information about a well-known and sourced fact of the Linobambaki roots of the Turkish Cypriots. This is the very historical information that disturbs the Turkish users of Wikipedia and with using their sockpuppet accounts they trying hard to prevent this information to be mentioned in the article.

A simple edit like: "Additionally, many of the islanders converted to Islam during the Ottoman rule and formed the Linobambaki community, who were later forced to assimilate into the Turkish Cypriot society during British rule.   " is enough for them to vandalize the article but I am writing here to start a talk about this subject even though I know that none of these users and their sockpuppet accounts will not write here anything.

There are thousands of books, journal articles and academic papers about this simple and known fact which I can write here one by one. But there is no single reliable source that opposes this fact. So, some users has to stop this vandalism and theater in this article (I can see from this talk page that many other users are aware of this situation as well) and act according to the Wikipedia policies. There has to be proper, objective and sourced information in Turkish Cypriots article about the Linobambaki. Actually so much more than that tiny sentence if Turkish users stops their attacks to the contributions and contributors.Pasedembo (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * , the first thing I should say is that I assumed your last edit was a simple revert of the previous one, because the edit summary starts with "(Undid revision 867051589 by Cinadon36..." - I didn't notice that you had tried to answer 's concerns with the sources by replacing them. If I had realized that, I might have responded a bit differently - or maybe not - in any case I apologize for my mistake. Nevertheless, it would be best to discuss things here, before continuing with edits. Cinadon36, do the new sources address your complaints about their reliability, and relevance to the statement?, would you accept a concise explanation of the Linobambaki somewhere in the article, or are you completely opposed to any mention of it?
 * Pasedembo, if you have evidence of sock puppetry, please report it as soon as possible to sock puppet investigations. This talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss it. If you are accusing me of sock puppetry, then you may wish to strike your comment, as unfounded accusations of sock puppetry are considered uncivil. Also, to avoid misunderstandings, the word vandalism is not the right word for what you mean to say; vandalism is when someone purposely defaces and damages an article, for example by adding profanity. If I understand correctly, you are complaining that some people edit in a way that doesn't represent a neutral point of view. That's against Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, but it's not considered vandalism - please see WP:VANDALISM for Wikipedia's definition.
 * Finally, I would like to hear better arguments from you, based on Wikipedia's core content policies. I'm sure you will find that Cinadon36, GGT, and most other editors here are reasonable people who are open to including encyclopedic content that is relevant to the article's subject, supported by high-quality reliable sources, and given due weight. Arguments that important facts that must be presented in the lead paragraph are being supressed by a cabal of nefarious Turkish nationalists reduce the perception that your edits represent a neutral point of view. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Finally, I would like to hear better arguments from you, based on Wikipedia's core content policies. I'm sure you will find that Cinadon36, GGT, and most other editors here are reasonable people who are open to including encyclopedic content that is relevant to the article's subject, supported by high-quality reliable sources, and given due weight. Arguments that important facts that must be presented in the lead paragraph are being supressed by a cabal of nefarious Turkish nationalists reduce the perception that your edits represent a neutral point of view. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Finally, I would like to hear better arguments from you, based on Wikipedia's core content policies. I'm sure you will find that Cinadon36, GGT, and most other editors here are reasonable people who are open to including encyclopedic content that is relevant to the article's subject, supported by high-quality reliable sources, and given due weight. Arguments that important facts that must be presented in the lead paragraph are being supressed by a cabal of nefarious Turkish nationalists reduce the perception that your edits represent a neutral point of view. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

a)First of all, I 'd like to remind everybody to WP:Assume Good Faith. Nobody is trying to hide anything and the title of the section should be chanced. b)As for the sources. First one, by Mitropoulos, p 93 talks about Islamized christians, not linobambaki. Linobambaki were not explicitly muslims, but something between christians and muslims. Christians who converted to islam are not linobambaki. I can not check the second source. The third source does not support the sentence. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * , thanks for your reply. You are correct that not all converts from Christianity to Islam maintained Christian practices as crypto-Christians. That is clearly explained in the third source. The sentence as written is misleading, as it gives the impression that all of the islanders who converted to Islam during the Ottoman rule were Linobambaki. However, chapter 8.4. in the first source is talking about - and is specifically titled - Linovamvaki, and it is not necessarily incorrect to describe them as "Islamized Christians". I'm not sure why you can't check the second source, the Google Books link works for me. Anyway, the cited book is about Crete, and doesn't discuss Cyprus, other than to say that the word was used for crypto-Christians there; since that's not disputed, the source seems unnecessary. The third source doesn't support the sentence as written, but it certainly supports the existence of a population of Linobambaki. Would it be possible to include at the end of the first paragraph in the "Ottoman Cyprus" section, something like "There was also a community of crypto-Christians, known as Linobambaki, who practiced both Islamic and, often in secret, Christian observances." Maybe we could use the third citation, or you could suggest a better one? --IamNotU (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

GGT - Thank you for the explanation. I have to point out that, first of all, I did not suggest this edit in first place. But this is an information that has to be in this page which I am sure that you are also aware of it (when I looked at your contributions to the Wiki articles). As you can see, I simply did not undo the edits, I changed the words and sources according to all users suggestions. And probably you agree with me, it is pretty easy to find reliable all kinds of source about this subject.

Cinadon36, yes WP:Assume Good Faith is very important. Because of that please have a look at the sources carefully. First source by Mitropoulos: you are right in p93 it talks about that. but p93 is the continuous part of the p92 (which is the "Linovamvaki' chapter of the book). So in p92-p94 it exclusively talks about supporting elements to this subject like: "They presented themselves as Muslims whereas in reality they retained their secret Christian faith" (p92) or "During the 20th Century and during the island's English occupation, Linovamvaki forced to join the Turkish population of Cyprus" (p94). And tons of other details in p93 which the section only talks about Linobambaki. In the second source from Şenışık, at p94 it says "...the fact that among these converts there were many Crypto-Christians. The term “Linovamvakoi” (a combination of two Greek words, signifying linen and cotton) used for them as in Cyprus." and "It was asserted that these “sword-converts” preserved their mother tongue -Greek- and their national customs and religious superstitions". And in third source from Djemal An both talks about Linobambaki people plus it mainly concentrates on the Crypto-Christians "The Latin Catholic Church did not oppress the Orthodox Christians anymore, and the Latins (Lusignans and Venetians) were allowed to stay in Cyprus if they would choose the religion of the conqueror, Islam, or the religion of the local Cypriot Orthodox people." This sentence clearly supports the first part of the contribution which is "Additionally, many of the islanders converted to Islam during the early years of Ottoman rule." This sources added by me to support this part of the sentence. But if this source is a problem belive me I can find hundred more academic source about Linobambaki and Turkish Cypriots. So my propose is to use this sources but change the contribution to something like:

Additionally, many of the islanders converted to Islam during the Ottoman rule and formed communities such as Linobambaki, who were later forced to assimilate into the Turkish Cypriot society during British rule.

Pasedembo (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * , fyi my username is, I am not . GGT has so far not commented in this discussion. In addition to my previous criticisms of your proposed edit, which this re-write hasn't addressed, I agree with GGT's edit summary that the phrase "forced to assimilate ... during British rule" does not represent a neutral point of view. It tends to give the impression that they were forced by the British rulers to give up their religious practices, but this is not the case, as there was no such policy on the part of the British. There was a tolerance of different religions by the British - as there had been with the Ottomans. It's possible they were forced by circumstances, such as increasing nationalism on both sides, or other factors, but that is entirely different than being compelled by the government. --IamNotU (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry about my mistake concerning your username. I appreciate that you shared your idea about British empire and Ottoman empire with their policies. But here we are talking about the contribution and the sources. Please have a look at the sources that I shared about the subject and it clearly indicated that there was a forced change. If you have different idea about it please support it with sources that says Linobambaki people did not assimilate to Turkish Cypriot population with force. Unfortunately only user who talks here with sources is me and it feels like I am trying to convince other Wiki users or having some kind of a negotiation. Now I want to point out one of your concern about the source from Şenışık. The books name consist "Crete" but it talks about Cyprus and Linobambaki issue as well. I shared the parts in my previous message. But we can add another source instead of that one if you dont like it. How about "The Potential of Peaceful Co-existence among the Cypriot Communities in the New Millennium" by Areti Demosthenous (Etudes et documents balkaniques et méditerranéens) p3-p15 talk about Linobambaki which concludes saying "During British rule, most of them, encouraged by the British, were assimilated	by the Turkish community."


 * Pasedembo (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * , it says "enouraged" not "forced". I'm afraid you won't get consensus to use the word "forced" in this way. The original source used in the Linobambaki article states that they "became integrated into the Turkish community when, with the development of the two opposing and conflicting nationalisms, compromise situations were no longer tolerated in either community." --IamNotU (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * As for Mikropoulos 2008, I am not very certain that he talks about Linobambaki. Let's wait for other users to contribute their wisdom. As for the third source, please do find another source as you are making an assumption (which might be valid nonetheless). The sentence "The Latin Catholic Church did not oppress the Orthodox Christians anymore, and the Latins (Lusignans and Venetians) were allowed to stay in Cyprus if they would choose the religion of the conqueror, Islam, or the religion of the local Cypriot Orthodox people." does not clearly supports  that "Additionally, many of the islanders converted to Islam during the early years of Ottoman rule." Cheers.  Cinadon36 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I outdented your comment, as it seems you were replying to the comment above, not to me... is that right? What did you think about my suggestion, to add "There was also a community of crypto-Christians, known as Linobambaki, who practiced both Islamic and, often in secret, Christian observances" to the end of the first paragraph of the "Ottoman Cyprus" section? It could cite Ahmet Djavit An 2016. --IamNotU (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, my mistake. As for your addition, it's fine by me. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but your words does not match with the WP:Assume Good Faith by saying "As for Mikropoulos 2008, I am not very certain that he talks about Linobambaki". Let me clarify one more time since I wrote this before and I believe you did read it:
 * Mikropoulos 2008 says: "During the 20th Century and during the island's English occupation,Linovamvaki forced to join the Turkish population of Cyprus" (p94, in the Linovamvaki chapter which starts in 92p continuous to 94p)
 * Demosthenous 2001 says: "During British rule, most of them, encouraged by the British, were assimilated by the Turkish community. (again the Linobambaki chapter which starts in 3p and continuous to 15p)
 * I am repeating again, our talk page here is going so far from WP:Consensus. Here are the reasons:
 * 1. We are here because mistake of . As you apologize for the case, there were not any edit war. Since the first edit I was trying to answer the concerns of other users. But thats fine, we are here and discussing this important subject.
 * 2. The sad part which does not match with Wiki policies and WP:Consensus; I am the only one who talks with sources. From first edit, I maybe shared 10 (ten) sources about the issue and supporting this simple contribution. But I received from other users not a single statement with source. This is simply unacceptable and this supports the question Why trying to hide information about Linobambaki in this article?.
 * 3. accepts the offer  made which is adding ""There was also a community of crypto-Christians, known as Linobambaki, who practiced both Islamic and, often in secret, Christian observances"  to the end of the first paragraph of the "Ottoman Cyprus" section. Let me remind you why we are here: Somebody made a reliable sourced small contribution about Linobambaki in the first paragraphs of the article. The GGT wrote that: there is no "forced" word in sources. Then I deleted the "forced" word from contribution with WP:Assume Good Faith. Then Cinadon36  shared his concern about one of the source, then I fixed it and added another source. Then IamNotU invited us here to make a WP:Consensus. Right now we are talking about this specific contribution and I am writing paragraphs of things and sources here. But without receiving a constructive contribution or sourced explanation. Then other users decides to write something even not related to our talk to unrelated part of the article.
 * I do not want to continue this meaningless efforts. We are here for one simple thing: Adding a small half-sentence to the first paragraph of the article which already starts "many islanders convert to islam during ottoman rule" and we have to talk over there about Linobambaki which is the core part of this converts.
 * I would like to end my message with "another" reliable source about this subject.
 * From Gürkan, H. (1986). Bir Zamanlar Kıbrıs‘ta (Once Upon a Time in Cyprus). (Nicosia: Cyrep Yayınları) p39: "The so-called Linovamvaki passed through a crypto-Christian stage to Islam during the period of the Ottoman rule and remained Muslims even after the advent of the British rule because the powerful Church of Cyprus did not accept them back".
 * So according to all sources, talks and WP:Consensus, my suggestion is to not mention "forced" word but editing the contribution something like:
 * Additionally, many of the islanders converted to Islam during the Ottoman rule and formed communities such as Linobambaki, who were later assimilated into the Turkish Cypriot society during British rule.
 * 3. accepts the offer  made which is adding ""There was also a community of crypto-Christians, known as Linobambaki, who practiced both Islamic and, often in secret, Christian observances"  to the end of the first paragraph of the "Ottoman Cyprus" section. Let me remind you why we are here: Somebody made a reliable sourced small contribution about Linobambaki in the first paragraphs of the article. The GGT wrote that: there is no "forced" word in sources. Then I deleted the "forced" word from contribution with WP:Assume Good Faith. Then Cinadon36  shared his concern about one of the source, then I fixed it and added another source. Then IamNotU invited us here to make a WP:Consensus. Right now we are talking about this specific contribution and I am writing paragraphs of things and sources here. But without receiving a constructive contribution or sourced explanation. Then other users decides to write something even not related to our talk to unrelated part of the article.
 * I do not want to continue this meaningless efforts. We are here for one simple thing: Adding a small half-sentence to the first paragraph of the article which already starts "many islanders convert to islam during ottoman rule" and we have to talk over there about Linobambaki which is the core part of this converts.
 * I would like to end my message with "another" reliable source about this subject.
 * From Gürkan, H. (1986). Bir Zamanlar Kıbrıs‘ta (Once Upon a Time in Cyprus). (Nicosia: Cyrep Yayınları) p39: "The so-called Linovamvaki passed through a crypto-Christian stage to Islam during the period of the Ottoman rule and remained Muslims even after the advent of the British rule because the powerful Church of Cyprus did not accept them back".
 * So according to all sources, talks and WP:Consensus, my suggestion is to not mention "forced" word but editing the contribution something like:
 * Additionally, many of the islanders converted to Islam during the Ottoman rule and formed communities such as Linobambaki, who were later assimilated into the Turkish Cypriot society during British rule.
 * From Gürkan, H. (1986). Bir Zamanlar Kıbrıs‘ta (Once Upon a Time in Cyprus). (Nicosia: Cyrep Yayınları) p39: "The so-called Linovamvaki passed through a crypto-Christian stage to Islam during the period of the Ottoman rule and remained Muslims even after the advent of the British rule because the powerful Church of Cyprus did not accept them back".
 * So according to all sources, talks and WP:Consensus, my suggestion is to not mention "forced" word but editing the contribution something like:
 * Additionally, many of the islanders converted to Islam during the Ottoman rule and formed communities such as Linobambaki, who were later assimilated into the Turkish Cypriot society during British rule.
 * Additionally, many of the islanders converted to Islam during the Ottoman rule and formed communities such as Linobambaki, who were later assimilated into the Turkish Cypriot society during British rule.
 * Additionally, many of the islanders converted to Islam during the Ottoman rule and formed communities such as Linobambaki, who were later assimilated into the Turkish Cypriot society during British rule.


 * Pasedembo (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , we are not here because of a mistake, we are here because of WP:BRD. Edit summaries are not the right place for discussion, it should have been taken to the talk page after the revert of the initial edit. Also I have read and specifically discussed the sources, so the comment "I am the only one who talks with sources. ... I received from other users not a single statement with source" is, I'm sorry to say, nonsense. Your proposed edit doesn't address the concerns of "WP:UNDUE for the lead", and in my opinion does not fully address the concerns about WP:NPOV, for the reasons I have already explained above. It continues to give the misleading impression that the many Cypriots who converted to Islam all formed separate "communities such as Linobambaki", i.e., crypto-Christians, and that they were compelled by the British to assimilate into Turkish communities. This is not accurate, even according to the existing sources. I also do not want to continue with meaningless efforts. Since you reject the compromise suggestion offered, and it seems that we are not making any progress, please follow the procedures at Dispute resolution, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , we are not here because of a mistake, we are here because of WP:BRD. Edit summaries are not the right place for discussion, it should have been taken to the talk page after the revert of the initial edit. Also I have read and specifically discussed the sources, so the comment "I am the only one who talks with sources. ... I received from other users not a single statement with source" is, I'm sorry to say, nonsense. Your proposed edit doesn't address the concerns of "WP:UNDUE for the lead", and in my opinion does not fully address the concerns about WP:NPOV, for the reasons I have already explained above. It continues to give the misleading impression that the many Cypriots who converted to Islam all formed separate "communities such as Linobambaki", i.e., crypto-Christians, and that they were compelled by the British to assimilate into Turkish communities. This is not accurate, even according to the existing sources. I also do not want to continue with meaningless efforts. Since you reject the compromise suggestion offered, and it seems that we are not making any progress, please follow the procedures at Dispute resolution, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * , there is no such a compromise suggestion don't make me laugh. Only person who made compromise suggestion was me. Plus all of the sources that I shared are supporting the idea word by word (i wrote them in my previous messages), and do not worry, I will follow the Dispute resolution for this propaganda page which is under attack of Turkish nationalists. I did not propose this edit in first place but I can see from talk page, there are a lot of other users with this Linobambaki and propaganda concerns for years and Turkish nationalist Wiki users and their sockpuppets controls this page with playing good cop and bad cop game. Thank you for making my points very clear with your nonconstructive claims without a single source. Anybody who reads this will have a clear idea whats going on here. Also now I just saw that you started ideologically vandalizing the Linobambaki article, good job.Pasedembo (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)