Talk:Rum millet

The map of the millets is incorrect. Wallachia and Moldavia were autonomous vassals, not included in the millet system. For instance, no mosques could be created there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-29038-15 (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Creek3. Peer reviewers: Alexschmidt711.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Disputed

Map of prevailing religions in the territories of the Ottoman Empire in the late 16th century.

Historians don't all agree that the Rum Millet, or even the so-called "Millet System," went all the way back to the fifteenth century. See Benjamin Braude's article "Foundation Myths of the Millet System" in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, Volume I, The Central Lands, London 1982. -Chamboz (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything disturbing in the map. The fact that there is no source does not mean that it should be deleted automatically. The map can be discussed, corrected, the author can be contacted and the sources he used to make it can be discussed, and so on. Jingiby (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

There is literally no source... Not a reliable map at all. Nanahuatl (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

all is said in Wikipedia about the history of the territories in the Ottoman Empire, the map is a quite accurate abstract: a Muslim majority in today's Bosnia, Catholics and Reformed in Hungary and Transylvania, some Muslims in East Thrace, Greek Orthodoxy at the coasts of Asia Minor, Armenians in the east etc.

Everythings fits at least at 90% with what we know and what is written in Wikipedia about these regions at these times. For me it is you, who has to show, where this is not the case. To say, there are no sources may be formally correct, but where is your argument against the accuracy of the map? It's just as seeing 1+1+1 and therefore concluding 3. --W-j-s (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This map was not deleted on Commons and I agree with W-j-s. Jingiby (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

Remsense, I haven't checked the sources here, but I am concerned about an outdated or nationalistic Greek POV across multiple articles in English-language Wikipedia. For example, see the sources in: Talk:Byzantine_Greeks#Outdated_or_Greek_nationalist_POV_in_the_article

Regarding SolderUnion and your edits, do the sources say Greek or Greek-speaking?

According to Anthony Kaldellis, "national Greek consciousness" began in 19th century:

Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition pp 13-14:

The fact that Hellenic identity was in fact reconstituted in modern times – roughly two centuries ago, and very successfully at that – complicates inquiries into its historical evolution. Interest in the history of Hellenism among historians today is usually inspired by a fascination with classical culture or a concern with the national identity of modern Greece, which is usually a personal concern. As it happens, however, only in those two relatively brief periods – namely before the international diffusion of Greek culture in the fourth century BC and then after the foundation of the modern Greek state in the 1830s – do we find what may be called a national Greek consciousness, namely the belief that being Greek entails sharing a common language, religion, way of life, and ethnic descent. ...

Remsense, this is an issue because you changed "Rum millet" to "Greek millet"

Bogazicili (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I will agree with you 100% regarding nationalistic Greek POV across multiple articles in English-language Wikipedia. I have very strong suspicion (would say rather I'm certain) about a particular group of people that are active in wikipedia for many years and silently promote their agenda. Little by little they have made big changes. Please check Talk:Ancient Macedonians especially regarding the section Correcting Nature of sources section 176. The guys have reverted that "Ernst Badian and Jonathan Hall note that Arrian (Anabasis 2.10.7) refers to Greeks and Macedonians as belonging to different races a term that explicitly articulates notions of descent" which is fully supported by the sources and changed it to ""Ernst Badian notes that nearly all surviving references to antagonisms and differences between Greeks and Macedonians, such as belonging to different génē, exist in the written speeches of Arrian" which doesn't make any sense grammatically and is not supported by the sources. No one objected. As if they want to obscure that Greeks and Macedonias were different races. Please check the talk and you will see many familiar faces. I'm very happy that you have the same observation. SolderUnion (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I had meant the potential POV in articles, which could be due to a variety of issues, such as dated sources.

Please refrain from WP:Aspersions about editors.

Any legitimate issues can be talked in article talk page based on WP:RS sources in a WP:CIVIL manner.

If you have any questions, you can ask in WP:Teahouse or WP:Help desk. You can also try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, such as Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard Bogazicili (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

There never was such a think as Greek Millet. There was always a Roman (Rum) millet headed by the Greek speaking Patriarch. The orthodox were happier under the Ottomans than to submit to Rome and actually fought with the Ottomans against the Catholics. Greek language was heavily promoted to the point that other languages were suppressed in churches and schools. In Albania the priest were telling people that if they pray in Albanian god will not hear them. In reality modern Greeks descended from the these Christians. The paradox is that the church that some claim destroyed the Greek civilization and personally believe in that was the same that saved the language and created modern Greece. People in the Ottoman empire spoke Romaika not Greek (although Romaika was Greek). Very complicated interactions with everyone choosing to accept the narrative that fits him. If someone can choose to accept a narrative that shows a Greek millet existed then he can justify it. You can create whatever narrative you wish. What is important though is how people perceived things then. SolderUnion (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

See R. Clogg, “The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire," in B. Braude and Bernard Lewis (eds.), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society (London and New York: Holmes & Meier, 1982), vol I, pp. 185 - 207. By the way all edits related to the designation Greek millet were done by a Turkish editor User:Benlittlewiki. Jingiby (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

It is incomprehensible that we even talk about this because the Greek Millet never even existed. In few years we will be arguing if Trump was woman or not. It's crazy that anyone can write a book and others can reference it creating realities.

P. Sugar, "Southeastern Europe under Ottoman Rule, 1354-1804" p43-55 SolderUnion (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The material I incorporated into this article came from Roderic Davison's Reform in the Ottoman Empire: 1856–1876, where he refereed to the Rum millet as the Greek Orthodox Millet, which he shortened to Greek Millet. To give context, he referred to the Armenian millet as the Armenian Gregorian millet, which he shortened to the Armenian or the Gregorian millet sometimes. Calling it the Greek Millet may be understandable as by then Bulgarians and Macedonians didn't identify with the Rum millet and Bulgarians achieved autocephalus status in the Orthodox Church by 1870, so those remaining in the club were mainly mostly Greek speakers. If this short hand is egregious by all means change Greek Millet to Rum Millet in article Benlittlewiki (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

If the source uses "Greek millet", then it's fine. It seems to be about late 19th century anyway, which doesn't contradict Kaldellis.

Why did you use a 1963 source by the way? WP:AGE MATTERS

You can always try The Wikipedia Library for newer sources. Bogazicili (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I trust your judgment here, Bogazicili; you're likely aware of the overarching dynamic here. Thanks for the diligence. Remsense ‥ 论 12:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The fact is I was too lazy to check the sources myself, so a talk page discussion seemed easier lol. Thanks for keeping watch across many articles. Bogazicili (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)