Talk:Dönmeh

Tuncay Guney

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

Recent events tag and completion state

I changed the completion state from "start" to "stub." I also gave the article a "recent events" tag because at this point, I think the article gives WP:Undue weight to newly developed neo-Sabbatean movements such as the Donmeh West. These are noteworthy groups and are good to mention in the article in this level of detail, but the article is missing more important information on the subject such as the several-hundred-year history of the Donmeh, their religion and culture, and their specific contributions to Turkish society. Would anyone be interested in adding some or all of this? --AFriedman (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Part of a project for one of my classes involves working on a Wikipedia article. I'm working my way through some additional resources (Maciejko 2011, Scholem 1978, etc.) in an attempt to add information on the development of the three main branches of the Donmeh, particularly the Berukhiah sect which gave rise to Frankism. Any other thoughts about directions for expansion? --SDSKrupnikova 1:51 a.m., 7 March 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Internal links

Several anonymous Users have repeatedly tried to remove internal links from this article. The links are about subjects that are related to the topic of the article. Why are they being removed? --AFriedman (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Because someone has been trying to censor some facts out of this wikipedia article. as everybody will see, the article was stable until 21st december. Then on, some guy from antalya-turkey started to shape the article to their own taste. More eyes are needed to prevent that "agenda". 78.181.149.192 (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it also looks like AnomieBOT deleted most of the content of the page at one point, under the pretext of "fixing reference errors." Perhaps we can discuss these issues with the admins? --AFriedman (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Administrator action needed?

Shall we go to Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents to report the IP addresses which are POV pushing, edit warring and removing internal links? --AFriedman (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not much experienced in these kind of situations. It seems the IP address in concern is a dynamic one and a possible block will not help. Instead, the page can be blocked to IP address edits (not sure whether Noticeboard/Incidents is the right arena for this, may be an admin should be approached/contacted), so if that guy is determined enough, he/she might need to edit through an account, which eases further blocks that can be sanctioned against.

I've also noticed that, in the past some other users deleted some content from the article without any reason (user:aalpan - yalcin kucuk, user:dougweller -some turkish links, turkish links do not violate WP:EL). Should we undo those deletions as well?78.181.142.4 (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This, while not gigantic, is a slightly broader problem. Since December, there's been a series of similar edits from a range of IP addresses at History of the Jews in Greece, History of the Jews of Thessaloniki, History of the Jews in Turkey and Henry Morgenthau, Sr. The main thrust has been to delete references to Sabbatai Zevi; in Morgenthau's case it's been adding an unsourced phrase like "emotional like a lion" with deprecation of the Armenian genocide. I put up the first two articles up for semi-protection (stopping edits from IP and brand-new editors) last month, but was declined for lack of convincing evidence, with an invitation to renominate if problems persisted. No one wants to discourage honest, helpful and informative edits from unregistered editors of all persuasions, but if you look at the revision (edit) histories of the respective articles, I don't think there's been such a constructive IP edit to any of them for a couple of months now. However the repeated unexplained edits that worry us have persisted, so it's probably worthwhile returning to WP:Requests for page protection. Also when you revert one of these edits, check the IP's "(contributions)" to see what other articles he or she has been altering. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with semi-protecting the page. It seems to be more or less effective for an article such as Judaism. Shakescene, thanks for all your helpful work. In the limited time I've got right now, I'd be happy to discuss semi-protecting all the pages these IPs edit. --AFriedman (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Me neither, provided that the article is preserved at it's current state.. I guess it's time to put up all the articles Shakescene pointed for semi-protection, because it seems this guy will never give up. Geolocate now shows a connection from Istanbul-Atakoy. 78.181.152.94 (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reported the IP addresses to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Several_anonymous_IP_addresses_in_the_same_location_reported_by_User:AFriedman_.28Result:_.29. I think the problem is mostly limited to the IP addresses and I've mentioned the other pages in question. Does anyone else have suggestions? Hopefully admin action on this will resolve the issue. --AFriedman (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

¶ Actually, this seems to me to be more of a case for WP:Requests for page protection for selected pages. There were some recent constructive edits by a different IP at History of the Jews of Thessaloniki, however; and the troublesome IP seems to have (as he/she often does) relented for a day or two (maybe to do with access to a connection at an Internet café, school, institution or workplace; maybe he or she's in the military and limited that way). I think semi-protection will be declined for several pages until there's a clear string as there has been here and at History of the Jews in Greece. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to nominate the pages for protection? I've uncovered the diffs for this article and it shouldn't be too much work to write up the reasons to protect. The admin I had also suggested this approach. --AFriedman (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Karakaş - Yakubî - Kapanî

Böri (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Authority

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

Merger proposal

Merge this article to Crypto-Judaism because it is part of that concept and not a separate one. --E4024 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

While it may be conventionally described as a crypto-Judaic cult, it also followed certain crytpo-Muslim practices and was not exclusively crypto-Jewish. In fact, members of the group actively avoided interacting with Jews as much as they did with Muslims, favoring their own members for marriage and other social activities. -- SDSKrupnikova 11:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[1]

Oppose. This developed into a separate and unique concept. And it was highly influential on Turkish life and so deserves its own article. JASpencer (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Within Judaism the Donme would be considered apostate, excommunicate, and not Jewish. Their theology diverged radically from Orthodox Judaism. A big part of donme theology itself was obsessed with the question of the apostasy of their Messiah, and his having been placed outside the Jewish people. Contacts remained with some Jews who remained sympathetic to Sabbateanism after the apostasy, but such Jews were themselves essentially crypto-Sabbateans within Judaism. Because they were not allowed to talk about their continued Sabbatean beliefs and had to hide them themselves. This is different than someone who converts under pressure but maintains Orthodox Jewish beliefs.2601:140:8900:61D0:E0AA:D1FC:7739:2142 (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

"Dönmeh"

The opening sentence says:

Dönmeh (Turkish: dönme) refers to a group of crypto-Jews in the Ottoman Empire and present-day Turkey who openly affiliated with Islam and secretly practiced a form of Judaism called Sabbateanism.

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

If they are referring to the followers of Sabbatai Zevi, I'm pretty sure the term "crypto-Jew" is inaccurate. Actually, I think terms like "crypto-Jew" and "crypto-Christian" should be abolished altogether. 96.235.177.63 (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Karakaş Rüştü

I have changed the name from Karakaşzade Rüştü to Karakaş Rüştü. I have seen the former source cited Rifat N. Bali, and Bali calls him Karakaş Rüştü, too. so... But I am open to read other arguments. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

Yes, I had seen your change, and it looked like it was done by someone with more knowledge of the Turkish language than me. Thanks for explaining it here. I believe you are correct since you have a reliable source supporting your version. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Significant change of content that was rolled back

After reviewing the change of content that was just done I decided it was too radical a change of content. The text that was there requested sources for some mild statements. The text that was put in makes some radically different strong arguments in a different direction. Since the subject of the text added is controversial I decided to roll it back, and to open this discussion of the content added here, instead. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The material now re-inserted (and removed for a second time), refers to a specific person/historical character. This person/character has its separate page on WP, and this material maybe belong there. But it certainly cannot replace here the content that was there, and needed references, in this page. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The material that was there and was REMOVED tried to argue that there are suggestions that many Donmeh may have been involved in the replacement of the old imperial Ottoman monarchy with the republic by Ataturk and his Young Turks movement. The material that was inserted refers to a specific character, that may have been a Donmeh or not, that was allegedly involved in the later murder of Ataturk. Two completely different subjects. Plus, the material that was inserted refers to a subject that has its own separate page on WP, and maybe belongs there. But not here, and not in the place and manner it was inserted. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Both the material removed and the new material inserted relate to current sensitive and controversial political matters. This type of political material needs to be handled with special care. It is OK to request references for the material that was there originally. But to replace it with sensitive political material that goes in the complete opposite direction is something different. It cannot be done in the form that was done. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Ataturk

The claim that Ataturk was a Donmeh is a statement made by the Islamists, who were not satisfied with his reforms, this section needs to be rechecked. 103.169.65.42 (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I edited the sections mentioning Atatürk. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I had made a comment to that effect, but you beat me to it. I agree with your changes. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

We could also remove (or try to source) all the unsourced paragraphs with citation needed since 2014... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I think that all the works of Marc David Bear already cited in the page would contain references to all these unsourced paragraphs. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)