Talk:Pomaks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Religion(s) of Pomaks[edit]

With the reality, Pomaks are also re-christianised before the 1st world war. They are also considered Pomaks. So it must hesitate to define the people Muslim Slavic etc. Maybe just Slavic and then in the religion title it talks about. I believe that there are also atheist Pomaks as well. Regards Anton.aldemir (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

The History section is a complete disaster. One cannot include five Greek extremely unpopular sources (with three of them blogs and suspicious websites with no references) and claim that to be "true" history. Moreover the view that there was some struggle of the Pomaks of Macedonia from 1904 to 1908 on the side of Greece is funny. Please, if you write about the history of the Pomaks, do it neutrally and cite internationally recognized literature or literature that does not introduce some funny theories. More over it is stupid to start the history of the Pomaks at 1904 with some funny statement that Pomaks fought against Bulgaria and Turkey(!!!) in order to become part of Greece. That's complete nonsense! --Chech Explorer (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right but there are not some facts verified for the history of Pomaks, earlier. The verified history of Pomaks starts with Ottoman rule. Earlier, there is so much mystery that there aren't any facts that can be characterized as "history". By the way, about the sources, I think newspaper "Natpresh", that it is written by Pomaks, is the only reliable source in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.211.188 (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That blog which you call "newspaper" cites no source, hasn't been recognized by any third-party academic institution and has absolutely no academic value which renders it as extremely dubious source on Wikipedia (and at all). Please read WP:RS. --Chech Explorer (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. That blog is the blog of the newspaper. See here some volumes of the Natpresh. It is a newspaper, used to be edited by the Center of Pomakic Research, in Komotini. Now belongs to Sebaidin Karachotza and has already 3 years.


Why do you delete the History? Is it Vandalism or what?[edit]

I don't think someone has the right to delete the history section without any discussion first. I realize that there are different points of view but this is not a reason to erase history. The section refers:

  1. To the fact of islamization of the Pomaks and the years that this fact happened. I think is a fact without any dοupts. Now I think that there are some issues for conflict:
  1. if it was volunteer or forced or both
  2. if it was the 15th century or the 18th century or gradually

It is a matter of conflict and we have to bring sources about these issues.

  1. To the Republic of Tamrash. I think this is a well known fact. There is an article for this in wikipedia, so I don't think there is a conflict about that. We can argue off course for:
  1. If it was Pomak, Turkish or both
  2. If its purpose was to be united with Ottoman empire or with Greece

It is a matter of conflict and we have to bring sources about these issues.

  1. It refers to the Greek Struggle for Macedonia and the participation of the Pomaks to this. It is a well Known fact. We can argue off course for:
  1. If the Pomaks fought the Bulgarians or the Ottomans or both
  2. If the Pomaks wanted to be united with Greece (all of them or some of them) or not

It is a matter of conflict and we have to bring sources about these issues.

  1. To the Republic of Western Thrace. There is an article for this in wikipedia, so I don't think there is a conflict about that. We can argue off course for:
  1. If it was Pomak, Turkish or both
  2. If its purpose was to be united with Ottoman empire or with Greece

It is a matter of conflict and we have to bring sources about these issues.

  1. To the attitude of the Pomak representatives in the Bulgarian parliament. They turned to Greece and France. This is a fact and it can be proved easily. Off course the source is missing but any volunteer can add it. Now I think that there are some issues for conflict:
  1. If they turned only to Greece and France or they turned to other countries also
  2. To ask help from Greece does it mean anything or it was something without importance.

There are a lot of facts that happened during the recent history of the Pomaks. In fact all those facts led us to the conclusion that they are a separate group. Their existence is traced because of many historical facts. We cannot hide these facts now and in the same time, we try to understand their origins. Every tribe, race, nation has its own history. This history must be written at the article of the Pomaks. Unless we prefer to create a new article for the "Pomak history".

There is no reason to erase the history of Pomaks just because we disagree. We will talk, we will bring sources and if we don't agree finally, we can put all points of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.211.188 (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until you provide relevant sources of academic quality there is no need for the section to exist in the article. Wikipedia is not a place where you put all kind of information you like. It is a reference encyclopedia which recognizes only reliable sources. Moreover the content should be removed from the article until a consensus is reached. --Chech Explorer (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the historical facts for the turn of Pomaks to Islam, there are some references:

  1. in the book "Thrace, historical and folk aproach of its civilization", in Greek, Manolis Vavounis (Professor of History in the Democritus University of Thrace), Manolis Sergis (Professor of Folk Culture in the Democritus University of Thrace), Evaggelos Albanidis (Professor in History of Athletics in the Democritus University of Thrace), Theofanis Malkidis (PhD in Social and Politic Sciences), Stathis Kerkidis, Giorgos Ekaterinidis, Despina Damianou, Dimitrios Goulimaris, Eleftherios Charitsidis, Nikos Kokkas. 2006.
  2. in the PhD research in the Humboldt University of Berlin, Sevasti Troumbeta "Constructing identities for the Muslim of Western Thrace: the example of Pomaks and Gypsies, 1998
  3. in the PhD research in the University of Athens, Ch. Papadopoulos "Why don't they learn in school?", 2005
  4. in the PhD research in the Democritus University of Athens, N. Panagiotidis "Muslim minority and national identity", 1995
  5. in the convention "Ideology in Balkan Anthropological Research", Bankya, Bulgaria, 24-27 August 1996, Fotini Tsimpiridou (Professor of Ethnology in Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales of Paris) "Politiques de l'identité minoritaire : Le cas des Pomak en Grèce".

About the "Republic of Tamrash" see the sources in the article of Wikipedia. About the participation of the Pomaks in the Greek struggle for Macedonia, see the sources in the article of Wikipedia. About the "Republic of Western Thrace" see the sources in the article of Wikipedia. About the letter of the 8 Pomak members of Bulgarian parliament, I couldn't find a history book, but I think I will soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.211.188 (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "Pomaks started to become Muslim gradually, from the Ottoman occupation (early 15th century) to the end of the 18th century."

The quoted text implies the pomak identity existed even before they have become muslim; where are your references or are you inventing "history" ?

98.171.185.47 (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The so called Pomak flag[edit]

While this flag has been removed from the article because it was added by a banned sock, any user who would like to reinsert the flag that none of the sources given can be considered reliable. 9 is a dead link, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 10 are simply pictures of this flag used on various pages without any explanation, 5 is from Slavialand which is an website of unknown authorship and veracity, 3 and 4 (one source repeated) itself uses as a source some of these websites and Wikipedia and 1 seems to be the work a Turkish organization which commits glaring errors (their distribution of the Pomaks, for example). It might indeed be possible that the flag by some organization of Pomaks in Turkey, however evidence of its use outside Turkey or as an ethnic flag of the Pomaks seems to be nonexistent, therefore the flag can't be reinserted with the current sources, if it is to meet Wikipedia standards on reliable sources. Kostja (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pomaks in Bulgaria[edit]

I removed the rant about a "state-sponsored assimilation of the Bulgarian pomaks and conversion of their moslem/arabic names to Bulgarian ones" and the events in the 1984-5, 1989 as these had nothing to do with the pomaks but were rather against the Turkish minority, even the reference given by the author clearly states that in its subject. Pomaks have alway had Bulgarian names and needed no name changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.189.232.108 (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is that the Arabic names of the Pomaks were changed with Slavic names.K. Ali 01:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karim Ali (talk • contribs)

Identity[edit]

Why is this ethnic group being labeled 'Bulgarian' when many of them identify as something else? --124.169.240.24 (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel-wording in the lede[edit]

I made the following edit to the lead [1], on the grounds that to say that they are "usually" considered Bulgarians is WP:UNDUE andwording. This is sourced to a single source, hence the claim that this is "usually" the case is unsubstantiated. Second, "some authors" claim that their origins are unknown is again weasel wording. Someone could just as easily written that their origins are "usually" unknown and that "some authors" consider them Bulgarian converts to Islam. Since their precise origins are unknown and there are many hypotheses, the most logical thing is to say: "Their precise origins are unknown. They are sometimes considered Bulgarians who converted to Islam while alternative hypotheses on their origins are also known." To me, that is the clearest, most logical and NPOV way to proceed. Also, the removal of the Greek and Turkish name is silly and jingoistic, while being a disservice to our readers. Athenean (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. --Chech Explorer (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not write that Pomak origins are unkown, write how the source shows some authors consider them as unkown, if not I will write my sourced information which you remove without giving a reason- Most schoolars consider them as Bulgarians of Islamic faith, true and sourced fact. And stop with these ridicilous Greek nationalistic edits adding greek names maximum 10 000 pomaks of half million have greek selfidentification. Pensionero (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most scholars (in Bulgaria) is not all scholars (worldwide). And if there is any disagreement (obviously there is) we have to be neutral. It is not neutral to impose your (or most of the Bulgarian scholars') opinion on Wikipedia. Why don't you consider the opinion of the Pomak authors? You can't impose identity on somebody else. Nor the Bulgarian scholars known for their faked facts and lies regarding the Pomaks which led to the Revival Process and to hundreds of deaths, oppression, exodus and intimidation. --Chech Explorer (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Can you prove that "most scholars" consider them Bulgarians? And the addition of the Greek and Turkish names have nothing to do with how many "Greek self-identification", but because these names are useful and interesting to our readers. I also suggest you change your attitude("And stop with these ridicilous Greek nationalistic edits"), otherwise we are going to have problems. Athenean (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I revrted the neutral version of Jingiby, you really have to provide reliable sources to say directly unkown origins. Pensionero (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And of course is important how many have "Greek self-identification", If I go on this logic, adding Bulgarian names on Alexander the Great and Athens, which have nothing to do the Bulgarian language, Will be correct this? For the Turkish name I don't know but the Greek name is not needed on the page. Pensionero (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is a large minority of Pomaks in Turkey and Greece, it is convenient to have the name in those languages too. The names of individuals do not matter. All information you revert is sourced. And you are violating the the three-revert rule. --Chech Explorer (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) A source attesting to the fact that their origins are unknown is provided [[2]]. 30,000 Pomaks live in Greece, don't you think how they are referred to in that country is interesting to our readers? That the Greek and Turkish names are provided does not in any way imply that Pomaks are Greeks and Turks. Athenean (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that they are Turks or Greeks, this bullshit overflow the intro and the infobox. That is undue as the Greek name is clearly stayted in paragraph Greece for which country is only important not for the entire community. Should I add that in Albania there are 100-150 000 Pomaks, if we add the albanian name in the infobox and the intro what will beacome? A verry messy interesting page for our readers. What do you think? Pensionero (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Authors[edit]

Could you post which changes are dramatical, I am cleaning generally not foreign authors. Besides reverting me you also placed some your unexplained edits such as "Bulgarains sometimes are regarded as descedents of Bulgarians who converted to Islam" Pensionero 16:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You had significantly altered the introduction section of this article, which has been worked on for years to find a concensus for its current state. Not to mention that you had removed sources and essential information. You should take it easy on the "cleaning" and try to discuss first before changing previous versions.Hittit (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't changed info in the introduction excluding removal view of Turkish author. The other was moving ahead languages than the identities. And I don't know how you have counted 3 rvts. but I reverted once. Pensionero 16:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pensionero Edit Warning and Ban Vote[edit]

As you have again reverted and "cleaned" without disucssion the original introduction of this article I have placed a warning on your talk page Tendentious Editing Warning-Note and 3RR. I suggest that you should be banned by admin, expecting opinions from other editors on this subject. Hittit (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with your manipulations for 3rr, here my only revert when I reverted you [3] Pensionero 16:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here I have to state that I reverted second time, but I still have not breaked 3rr rule[4] Pensionero 16:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of a series on Bulgarians???[edit]

It is tendentious to classify this article as "Part of a series on Bulgarians". It is a general Bulgarian State Policy not to classify its citizens as Pomaks this was again evident in the last census from this year where ethnicities as Pomak were removed from the census templates and all Pomaks are registered as ethnic Bulgarians (under Muslim). This being the case it seems quite impossible to have officially Pomaks in Bulgaria. Currently there is no reliable data on Pomaks in Bulgaria since it is forbidden to classify them as such in any statistics. Pomaks however are found in large numbers in many Balkans states and could be part of e.g., series on Turkey since it seems most Pomaks today live there. Hittit (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond you simply, the Bulgarian Muslims are locally called Pomaks, the second reason is the Bulgarian mother tongue. Pensionero (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case there are no Pomaks in Bulgaria and you should focus on the article Bulgarian Muslims Hittit (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sad you can not understand, the Bulgarian Muslims call themselves Pomaks locally not in census, also there was no census where someone have identified as Pomak ethnically if we go on this logic there are no Pomaks not in Bulgaria but in the world. Pensionero (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox and Weasel wording in the page?[edit]

Hittitt you have to have difference between Bulgarisation and claiming that a group of people is part of an ethnicity, the source doesn't says Bulgarification but caliming them as part of someones and this is Weasel wording. Furthermore that the Pomaks are descedents of Bulgarians is supported by 5 sources and by neither one that they are descedents of "Ethnic Pomaks". This claiming stays ridicilous in the page along with "The Pomaks are usually considered descendants of native Bulgarians who converted to Islam during the Ottoman rule of the Balkans".Pensionero (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim minority in Greece[edit]

de Jong writes about the Muslim minority in Greece, but am quite sure that he does not state anything like "the origins of the Muslim minority in Greece remain unknown". The Muslim minority is composed of Turks, Pomaks and Roma, and it is absurd to lump them all together in this context. The sentence simply does not make sense, and the link to "Muslim minority of Greece" makes it even worse.79.160.40.10 (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to Pomak origins[edit]

Hello Jingiby. I ask you to reconsider your reverting of my addition to the intro om Pomaks. I am rather new to this game, and I see now that I need some help making the referencing good enough. I wrote 5ff in the the Aarbakke reference, meaning page 5 and the following pages according to the pagination of the document. This is page 27 in the pdf-file, which may make the referencing confusing. For instance: In the lower part of page 5 (27) you will find the sentence "There exists a plethora of books with more or less fanciful theories about the Pomaks." Don't you think this is a relevant source? The other source, which you have deleted, is even more relevant. On page 106 and 107 according to the pagination of the document (page 12 and 13 in the pdf file), she discusses the different Greek and Turkish theories of origin. I think these two sources justify the sentence "although alternative narratives ..." I think that it is a good thing that these two authors do not propose any theories themselves, but just refer to others. Then the alternative theories themselves can be treated in the lower part of the article, where they belong. Regards! 79.160.40.10 (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 79.160.40.10 the alternative theories are treaten in the lower part of the article, because they are simply fringe views. Regs.

The point is: There exists "alternative narratives", fringe or not, and they have been heavily discussed through years and years, as those two sources shows (and I could give more, similar sources). That is in itself an interesting fact that should be represented in the article. Your point about fringe is still covered by the wording "are usually considered" in contrast to "although ... have been proposed". Actually, the very fact that this has been edited in and out of the intro many times, strengthens my view. I will try to get time to continue this discussion on the Pomak talk page. Regards 79.160.40.10 (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, here is an encyclopedia, not a place for collections of alternative narratives, fairy-tales, science-fictions or fantasy-stories. Regs. Jingby (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess we have to agree that we disagree! Could I ask you to transfer what we have discussed here to the Pomak talk page, so that we can let other people give their view. I do not know how to make the transfer, and it would be silly to use your and my time to repeat the same things arguments. Is that OK with you? 79.160.40.10 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that currently there are no certain facts on the exact origins of the Pomaks. In Bulgaria the state policy is to eliminate any classification referring to Pomaks and push the state sponsored theory of Islamized Bulgarian Muslims. In Greece push the Pomak classification in order to show smaller figures of ethnic Turks and in Turkey the general belive is that this population was Muslim before the Ottomans came to te Balkans. All angles deserve a fair ellaboration and need of 3rd party sources preferable Western. Hittit (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I am not convinced that any non-Bulgarian theories on the Pomaks' origin can be dismissed as "fringe". There is nothing to back this assertion other than the say-so of some users. Unless it can proven (via a high quality academic source that explicitly says so) that all other theories are fringe, a mention that there are alternative origin theories in the lead is warranted. All the more so as it is properly sourced, in stark contrast to the "fringe" claims. Athenean (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This whole discussion, on both sides, is marred by the ridiculous misunderstanding that there even is any such thing as "the origin" of "a group". Accordingly, the article is a pathetic incoherent hodgepodge, one of the most miserable I've seen on this project. Of the alleged origin "theories", not a single one is even summarized in any tangible form. As long as nobody has been able to account for any such theory, yes, we should assume that they are all fringe. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with ☼, and the biggest casualty has been the Pomaks article its self.Hittit (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is much to be done about the "Theories" part of the article. The "Other theories" section is extremely thin, and anyway it does not make much sense to have an "Other theories" section without presenting the main theory properly (instead of intermixed with "History"). I feel that we need a "Theories" part, since the rather heavy debates on origins have been important for how Pomaks have been regarded and treated in the countries where they live.
My first concern now is the intro. I think that the intro should state three facts:
  1. that there has been heavy debates
  2. that the main theory is that Pomaks are islamized Bulgarians
  3. that there has been proposed (several) alternative theories
As I see it, we do not need to give sources for #1, since that follows from #2 and #3. If anyone thinks it is necesssary to have discintive sourcing for #1, any of the two sources I have given for #3 could be moved to here, and I can add other sources for #3.
Regarding sources for #2, there are now no less than five. I think that this is far too many, but will let others decide which ones to remove. We do not need many sources for the Bulgarian Muslims theory itself (they could better be moved to the (future) presentation of the main theory in the article itself). What needs to be sourced here is the claim that this is the main theory. I suggest to use Thomas as the main source here, as he states clearly that "most scholars . . . ", which is exactly what we need to have sourced.
The same principle goes for #3. We do not need sources for this theory or that theory (they belong in "Other theories"), but we need sources whcih states that there have been propsed other theories. This is exactly what the two sources I have given do. I could add several others, but have chosen two that are easily found on the Internet. Regards! 79.160.40.10 (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Per Fut. Perf's comments above, I've reverted your edit, as I believe that the alternative theories should not be given WP:UNDUE weight (that is, a place in the intro). — Toдor Boжinov — 10:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not find it that important to mention other theories in the intro (even if I feel that you use the "fringe" labelling a bit too freely). I do, however, think that it is important to mention the fact that this has been a debated issue. I reintroduce the sources without mentioning other theories. 79.160.40.10 (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I somehow can't associate theories about Pomaks being Arabs or Thracians with mainstream research and I don't think I have to explain why. I am also somewhat opposed to the "The origin of the Pomaks have [sic] been debated" addition. Alternative theories about the origin of populations are common, that doesn't mean they have to be prominently featured in Wikipedia articles. I'm not going to remove it for now, pending further discussion, but I find it unnecessary. — Toдor Boжinov — 12:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Todor it is not relevant what theories you personally associate explaining the origins of the Pomaks. There is enough international and non-Bulgarian research to conclude that the Pomak origin is for now obscure and that clearly there is a great debate on the topic. The fanciful theory of them being from Bulgarian origin (Bulgarian meaning member of the Bulgarian Orthodox community who identifies its self as being from the South-Slavic religious and cultural domain) and somehow converted is to mildly put it a product of Bulgarian nationalist state policy (anti-Turk, anti-Muslim) prior to 1989. Kristen Rogheh Ghodsee points out that this product of the Bulgarian Communist propaganda is what Bulgarian prefer/choose to believe in and have systematically tried to present, now after 1989 they have clearly changed their angle. I personally am not interested in Bulgarian POV and would like to see this article discussed from all views providing an objective discussion on the Pomaka as an ethnic group. For those interested please consult Kristen Rogheh Ghodsee from page 37. * Ghodsee, Kristen Rogheh (2010). Muslim lives in Eastern Europe. Princeton, New Jersey.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) Hittit (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "fanciful theory" is supported by five non-Bulgarian authors in the article. In fact, to call the most obvious and common sense theory fanciful, is an evidence of a glaring lack of objectivity. The fact that Ghodsee dismiss this theory out of hand also puts their objectivity in question. Kostja (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the article, I'm afraid I'll have to withdraw my hasty criticism of Ghodsee. Hittit, as usual, has cited the source very selectively and has ignored the very clear: "The most accepted argument among scholars for the origin of the Pomaks, however, is that they were ethnically Slavic, Bulgarian speaking Christians who adopted Islam", p.39. How from this sentence one could decide that this is a fanciful theory is really beyond me. Kostja (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article as well. It seems to describe the fringe theories that exist and gives a very good explanation of how they were invented (Arab missionaries). As per the quote Kostja provided, the article clearly supports the dominant point of view that Pomaks are ethnic Bulgarians, so no controversy here. Another case of Hittit abusing sources to push their POV. — Toдor Boжinov — 07:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well read again.Hittit (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you all back, ready to hit each other on the head. Could I be so bold as to make a suggestion? Instead of pushing pro- and anti-Bulgarian, pro- and anti-Greek, pro- and anti-Turkish, pro- and anti-whatever POVs (mentioned alfabetically, so as not to offend anyone), wouldn't it be possible to join forces to make this article better? People seem to agree that it is a mess. The history of the article shows that most attempts to add something, usually ends with deletion, because everyone disagrees with the last speaker.

Leaving the intro as it is for a while, what we clearly need, is a serious presentation of the theories of origin, not only the "alternative" theories, but also the main theory. The part that is called "History" needs a complete rewriting into a clear presentation of the main theory of origin. The "Other origin theories" needs to be expanded.

And please do not play the "fringe" card. The production of theories (of very diverse quality, admittedly) about the Pomaks during many years is an interesting fact in itself – actually what first raised my interest in the Pomaks. When authors like Ghodsee, Aarbakke, Demetriou and many others use time to discuss such theories, it is because they shed light on the connection between nationality, nation building and foreign policy in SE Europa. And as this talk page (and many others) shows, this is a very sensitive, but immensely interesting area (not least for an outsider like me).

When you all have contributed to make this article a better one, we may have made a small step for man, but a . . . – oh, never mind. Good luck! 79.160.40.10 (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Déjà vu[edit]

I have a strong feeling that we have seen this before. Ah, yes! Those same edits were done back in March by (surprise!) Pensionero. At that time they were challenged and corrected by several editors, and the edit war eventually came to an end.

And now suddenly these edits are back.

Please bear in mind that this is an article not about Bulgarian Muslims, but about Pomaks in several countries (among them Bulgarian Muslims). It is therefore quite relevant and proper to present the name of the group in the countries where there is a significant number of Pomaks. It is also not relevant or proper to present this article as a part of a series on Bulgarians.

Please refrain from starting this "Bulgarification campaign" all over again. Regards! 79.160.40.10 (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality or propaganda?[edit]

"Pomaks are today usually considered descendants of native Bulgarians who converted to Islam during the Ottoman rule of the Balkans." The better sentence is: Pomaks, in 21 c., are usually considered descendants of native Christians who were converted to Islam during the Ottoman rule of the Balkans. K. Ali 05:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karim Ali (talk • contribs)

This is not matter of neutrality, but of citing sources correctly. And as five sources say exactly that, there can be absolutely no question of trying to invent a "better" sentence which misrepresents the sources. Neutrality does not mean removing information which might be unpleasant for some users. Kostja (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Kostja (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Chronicle[edit]

American Chronicle, despite its dignified name, is basically a repository of various authors with dubious credentials and is little better than a blog. Now of course this can be examined by the reliable source board but I would that a quick browsing of the site will reveal its low reliability. Kostja (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. In our case, the articles:

Selian, Edouard (2009). The Pomaks: an Islamized People of Europe

Selian, Edouard (2010). The Immortal Spirit of the Goddess Nané fit well with the text for the “Paulician and Bogomil origin”.

Questioning the credibility of the “American Chronicle” seems like an attempt to eliminate the above articles. You should attempt to disprove the content of the articles rather than try to slander the source of the articles. Simba22 (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is one thing, relevance is another. Even if reliable, there is no way that Selian 2010 can be relevant. Selian 2009 maybe, but 2010 not. If any text mentioning the Pomaks more or less by-the-way should be given room, we could fill the whole Wikipedia. The Further reading section is already long enough, and none of Selians articles could ever defend a place in External links. No way! --79.160.40.10 (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Pomaks are descendants of the Paulicians - Armenians who were converted to Islam" according to Edouard Selian.

That the Pomaks are converted Paulicians is not logical at all. The Paulicians were a Christian heretical group and they were literate. The Pomaks are not literate and it's inconceivable that a group of people would loose their alphabet and written tradition within a span of few hundred years. The Pomaks do not even have a oral tradition that they once were literate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsimiski (talk • contribs) 06:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian Muslims and Gorani[edit]

I propose that this page be edited to reflect the fact that Macedonian Muslims and Gorani are not considered "Pomaks" in a modern context. It is misleading to suggest that these people are Pomaks, given that the word Pomak is generally used to describe Bulgarian-speaking Muslims living in Greece/Bulgaria/Turkey, and not Macedonian-speaking Muslims living in Macedonia/Albania. If however, it is decided that it is necessary for these sections to remain, then the Infobox and the lead needs to be changed in order to reflect these facts. What are people ideas pertaining to this? Or should I be WP:BOLD? Lunch for Two (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a matter of fact, in the end the Gora or the Macedonia are two regions where Slavic tribes settled once in a time. Because of the Ottomans, they could create the national states so very late: Many isolated Slavic communities could protect the archaical language styles till today. Gorans live in the Gora regions that is why they identify themselves like this. On the other hand. Gorani is confused with Goranis in Kurdistan. Gorans is a better presantation for Slavic one. Regards Anton.aldemir (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per Hugh Poulton's opinion in "Muslim identity and the Balkan State, Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (Imma) Hurst, 1997" there are Pomaks in Macedonia even today. This view is supported in "Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia от Jeffrey Cole ABC-CLIO, 2011, ISBN 1598843028"; [5], as well as by "Dismembering the state: the death of Yugoslavia and why it matters, P. H. Liotta Lexington Books, 2001, ISBN 0739102125": [6]. There are more sources, but I think thеse are enough. However, the lead needs to be changed in order to reflect these fact. Jingby (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a few sources, however the vast majority place them outside of the Pomaks classification. Even in the source you gave ""Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia от Jeffrey Cole ABC-CLIO, 2011" the "Torbeshi" are mentioned as a seperate group and are only tentatively included as part of the Pomaks appelation. Doing a search for certain terms in Google Books is not evidence of good scholarship, and is neither convincing. What is apparent in all of the sources is that the Torbeshi/Gorani are almost always not treated as Pomaks. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are a lot of sources. [7]; [8]. Stop POV-pushing Macedonistic agendas. They are ridiculous. Jingby (talk)

Lets do a more accurate search. "Pomaks in Macedonia" - 9 hits. [9] vs "Macedonian Muslims" - 391 hits [10] vs "Torbeshi" - 166 hits [11]. Likewise with "Pomaks in Kosovo" - 0 hits [12] vs "Goranci" - 664 hits [13]. Now I don't think that this should be used as a be all and end all, however it is quite clear that Pomaks is no longer used in scientific circles to describe these people. It may have been used 100 years ago, however today is not used. Lunch for Two (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You got a lot of reliable scientific sources. Do not change the article. Stop POV-pushing! Jingby (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then, however if you are going to include Macedonian Muslims and Gorani, then it needs to be made clear that these people speak Macedonian and Nasinski respectively, and not Bulgarian. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pomaks and the other Muslim Slavs[edit]

I suppose that the Bulgarian fellows try to push the idea that all Slavic Muslims are Pomaks. In that case, the Bosniaks are Pomaks right? In reality, Pomaks are only in Bulgaria and Greece, in Macedonia and Albania they are called Torbes, in Kosovo Gorani and they are not related. Separate the facts please.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Macedonian Muslims, or Torbeš, are occasionally also referred to as Pomaks, especially in historical context. That is virtually what th article has to say on this. Plus, it is well-sourced. What seems to be troubling you? --Laveol T 16:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a separation between the Pomak language and the Pomak ethnicity, currently in the article it states that Pomak are somewhat Slavic Muslims? Highly contested, I would remove "Slavic". Pomaks are a Muslim population group native to the Balkans.Hittit (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serbo-Croatian speaking Muslims have formed in the last 60 years on the base of their religion the Bosnians ethnos and their language is called recently Bosnian. The Bulgarian-speaking Muslims are called Pomaks. Part of them - in Macedonia, Albania and Kosovo, are speaking the most western Bulgarian dialects, which after the WWII are considered to be Macedonian dialects. Jingiby (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth investigating further linguistic branches of the Pomaks, but once you call them Slavic Muslims then one defines the Pomaks by race for which there is no tangible evidence.Hittit (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest user Jingiby informs himself a little better on the Bosniaks before dropping statements. Serbo-Croatian was coined as a term only in the mid-19th century, before this the language was collectively called Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian etc. depending on which ethnic group spoke it. Bosniaks have historically always referred to their language as Bosnian - the first dictionary in the language spoken by Bosniaks, Serbs, Croats was the Bosnian-Turkish dictionary written in the 16th century by Bosniak author Muhamed Hevaji Uskufi who already back then referred to his language as Bosnian, and ethnicity as Bosniak. What has happened in the last 60 years is not the birth of a Bosniak nation, as much as a re-birth of it. Moreover, contemporary Serb and Croat identities in Bosnia have their point of origin in the 19th century, prior to this all inhabitants of Bosnia were exclusively regarded Bosniaks (Bosnjaci). Similarly, the inhabitants of the pre-Ottoman Bosnian kingdom identified themselves as Bosnians (Bosnjani), while the names "Serbs" and "Croats" were not found.90.230.54.125 (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of Macedonian by Pomaks[edit]

I have removed the claim that Pomaks speak the Macedonian language as native as the prevailing evidence is that they speak Bulgarian and the sources submitted to prove that they spoke Macedonian do not actually support this claim. Two of the sources (Yearbook of Muslims in Europe and The Albanian Question: Reshaping The Balkans) do not mention the Pomaks at all. The third source - Balkan Idols: Religion and Nationalism in Yugoslav States Religion and Global Politics - does not indicate what language is spoken by the Pomaks. And the fourth source - Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: L-R - call their language Bulgarian twice. If the Torbesh and Gorani were once called Pomaks, that seems to be no longer the case today, as most sources about the Pomaks do not mention them living in Macedonia, Albania or Kosovo. In any case, it should be noted that when those people were called Pomaks, the language spoken in Macedonia was generally considered a Bulgarian dialect.

Also, the Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations is of dubious reliability, containing many obvious errors about the Pomaks. Most notably: 1. Razlog, a town with hardly any Pomaks is called capital and cultural center of the Pomaks. Also, Razlog certainly doesn't have 22,000 inhabitants. 2. It is claimed that the Pomaks call Smolyan Smilyan, but that's actually a separate settlement. 3. The claim that there are Pomaks in Romania. 4. While the encyclopedia describes the Pomaks as mainly living in the Rhodope mountains, it claims that their dialect is close to both Bulgarian and Macedonian, which contradicts a more reliable source that considers the dialects of the Rhodopes eastern Bulgarian dialects (the Macedonian dialects are considered a western Bulgarian dialects by Bulgarian linguists). When once considers that tertiary sources like this encyclopedia should be used with caution and only for straight factual statements (and not interpretations), this source certainly is not sufficient for the claim that the Pomaks speak Macedonian (and for the statement about their supposed flag, either). Kostja (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fifth source used to support this dubious claim is Who are the Macedonians, but that doesn't contain such information is either. To go from the fact that the Torbesh were once called Pomaks and to claim from there that the Pomaks speak Macedonian (as the Torbesh are usually considered to do) but without any source to back this, is synthesis which is considered original research. Kostja (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New reliable source added :" Macedonian language is spoken by the Muslim Torbeshi in Macedonia. Torbeshi is the name given to the Pomaks who live in Macedonia". Jingiby (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book contradicts itself by calling Pomaks alternatively those living in Bulgaria and all Slavic Muslims in the region. Certainly not enough, when all sources that are actually about the Pomaks call their language Bulgarian and that Pomak is an alternate name for Torbesh, at best.
Also, why you have you reinserted sources that do not contain the information you claim they contain? And you have also violated the 3RR policy, so I would advise you to revert yourself. Kostja (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You too! Jingiby (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have three reverts, you have four. And you haven't explained why you reinserted those sources.

In the last 24 howers you have 4 reverts. Jingiby (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ahriani (pomak endonym) or agriani is ancient macedonian tribe. big part of macedonians were moved by byzantium in rodhope-edrene region (forming of the byzantine theme macedonia). pomak language is identical to mijak and gorani dialect of macedonian language. there are hundreds different dialects between them, but these are identical. there is your clue first, that ancient macedonian language still persists. second, it's slavic. third, veda slovena is pomak macedonian folklore. fourth, slavs were also called schytians or scoloti, while macedonia and thrace in naqsh e rustam are called skudra, which means schytia. fifth, according to darius the great inscriptions, slavs are present in balkans since 6th century b.c., and not just that, they made an empire, called macedonia. sixth, there are no similarities between slavic language and kutrigur, utigur, bashkir, pecheneg, kuman, udi, gagauz etc languages (which are commonly known as bulgarian).89.205.59.148 (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing of Torbeshi and Gorani[edit]

If the Macedonian dialect of this people is a fundamental problem for you, it is posible to remove them from the article. Jingiby (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to revert myself and to remove the sections about the Gorani, the Torbeshi and their language. Do you agree with this proposal? Jingiby (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is about undue weight. When, on one hand, no sources claim that Pomaks speak Bulgarian and Macedonian (in fact, many sources specifically define Pomaks as Bulgarian speaking) and when on the other hand, you have only some incidental sources calling the Torbesh or Gorani Pomak, and usually only as an alternate name, it seems inappropriate to give Macedonian equal stature as Bulgarian. especially in such a visible place as the lead or the infobox. It gives an wrong impression, considering that most of the people called Pomaks live in the Rhodope mountains and speak Eastern Bulgarian dialects.
But I'm not entirely against the inclusion about the language of the Torbesh and the Gorani, but it does need to be presented in a proper context. Perhaps it should be added to the language section, that the Torbesh and Gorani, who are sometimes considered as Pomaks, speak Macedonian dialects, which are often considered Bulgarian. Kostja (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Jingiby (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pomeranians (Slavic tribe)[edit]

Pomak is the Bulgarian Version of the Pomeranians (Slavic tribe).

So Pomaks are nothing else as Pomeranians (Slavic tribe), who settled in the Rhodope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.171.50 (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

translation of "Yunancko"[edit]

The translation of "Yunancko" according to the Research Team of the local Newspaper of Glafki "Matia tis Glafkis" (head of research team is Seinour Malko) is "Greek". Any other translations must lay on sources. My Greek-Pomak dictionary "H kathimerinh glossa ton Pomakon tis periochis Mykis"/"The daily language of Pomaks of Myki area" by Sembaedin Karachotza (Spanoudis editions, Xanthi 2006) agrees with that. What is said, that "Yunancko" means "Heroic" is not supported by sources and it is completely wrong since "hero" is "yunak" in pomak language and not "Yunan". "Yunan" means "Greek" also in Turkish language. User:Pyraechmes Chrusts 12:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally wrong misinterpretation and incorrect translation. Yunacko is traditional word for Bulgarian and South Slavic epic folklore meaning: Heroic.
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Word Yunancko is never used in South Slavic.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not reliable translation. Jingiby (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More if I see on this English-Pomak Glossary Greek is Urúmin not Yunancki. Jingiby (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please, you see, all attempts for verifications has failed. Do you have any other source to confirm the translation? Jingiby (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all:

The word to be translated is "Yunancko". So "Yunacko" is out of the question.

Let's now talk about "Yunancko".

"Unreliable source"

You said that the source is unreliable. Is it?

"Matia tis Glafkis"[14] is the Student magazine of Glafki Senior Highschool. It is edited by the School with the teachers' supervision.

The Writing Commitee is Nazli Zoumboul, Embie Kara Chotza and Ostzan Kalfa. The research team of that publishment is Dilel Azizoglou, Sevgi Azizoglou, Ailin Ali Dai, Aila Achmetsik, Tzeilan Achmetsik, Emine Giritli, Chassan Gida, Nazli Zoumboul, Reichan Zoumboul, Orchan Imam, Atzer Ichtiar, Ailin Kapza, Asli Kara Chassan, Embie Kara Chotza, Ostzan Kalfa, Metin Kiose, Ersan Kiontse, Erchan Kiourt Tsolak, Sendat Kots, Osman Mekera and Seinour Malko.

That Magazine published that song on its second issue.

The "Cultural Pomak Association of Xanthi prefecture" is a recognized Association by the Greek State Law.[15]

  • Tachir Konte, president
  • Sembaedin Karachotza, vice-president
  • Alie Efenti, secretary
  • Irfan Mechmetali, organizing secretary

The "blog" "Pomakochoria" (ΠΟΜΑΚΟΧΩΡΙΑ) is the official site of the "Cultural Pomak Association of Xanthi prefecture". [16]. It just re-published the song.

So, I think the source is reliable.

"Verification needed"

That song with the same translation is also published in two books of Pomak researcher and folk singer Ali Rongo. The fist book "Pomakika Dimotika Tragoudia tis Thrakis" (Pomak traditional songs of Thrace) Volumes I & II, published in Xanthi 2002[17]. And, "Paramythia ke Tragoudia ton Pomakon tis Orinis Xanthis" (Myths and Songs of Pomaks in Mountainous Xanthi) published in 2006.[18]

So, I think we have the appropriate verification.

About liguistic notices you 've made, I have to add that a lot of Pomak villages have much more Turkish influence than others. So, it is quite common that Pomak language varies from village to village and each variation depends on the Turkish influence. That explains why some villages count numbers in slavic and some others in turkish (in that song the numbers are mixed: "trimina" for "three" but "on dokus" for "nineteen"), That's why in some villages "Greek" is "Urumcko" but in some others is "Yunancko".

The sources are clear.

User:PyraechmesChrusts 16:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pomaks' language[edit]

I suppose it must be changed to Turkish(majority) and Bulgarian, Greek as minority since more than %60 of the Pomaks live in Turkey and speak Turkish.

  • I am agree. Today, the Pomaks speak mostly Turkish. Also, they speak other languages: Bulgarian and Greek (the languages of their residency). The Pomak language is one Slavic language which is not standardized yet. Probably, typical representatives of this language are the dialects of Hanthi in Greece and the dialect of Smolyan in Bulgaria. K. Ali 05:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karim Ali (talk • contribs)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pomaks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic group or term[edit]

Unresolved

This article needs to clear whether this is an uniform ethnic group or a term used for Slavic Muslims. The article uses an infobox. This is dubious.--Zoupan 21:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Largely disputed, Pomaks however is generally accepted term for this specific ethno-cultural population living in Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey.Hittit (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC) https://books.google.fi/books?id=M9fDifnkMJMC&pg=PA288&lpg=PA288&dq=pomaks+are+ethnic+group&source=bl&ots=nGZ1nKh8U7&sig=EocNLDFsvuc1-tBthG7l1tXAoOg&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiM7P2jnIPKAhXLkCwKHR4LBhgQ6AEIYTAI#v=onepage&q=pomaks%20are%20ethnic%20group&f=false[reply]
I don't think there is a unified version. It ranges from an ethnographic to ethnic group. Not to mention the varying self-identification of Pomaks themselves. --Laveol T 13:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who are these Pomaks? Why is the infobox including non-Pomak (historically designated) ethnic groups?

Please clarify the scope of this article. Per this, proper identification, I am removing Gorani and Torbeshi from the introduction and infobox. reinforcing with these references.--Zoupan 14:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pomaks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help to transliterate[edit]

The problem is here. A mysterious troll reverts my edits :-D Manaviko (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In both of the examples you have given in your edit summaries here and here, you have shown that the Bulgarian name can be transcribed "Pomaci" in Turkish, but since this is English Wikipedia, that is of no interest here. As you can see in the English version of the same website here, the name is rendered as "Pomatsi". This is actually similar to the situation of transliteration from Greece, where you correctly changed the transcription from "Pomaki" (which would be correct in many languages, but not in English) to "Pomakoi" (which is the correct version in English). --T*U (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pomakish, your being English and Reliable Source[edit]

Moved from my user talk page. --T*U (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pomakish as a slavic language and it is a fact that in Slavic languages, the endings -ski stands for -ish, isch and also, with -ian and -ien in Germanic ones as seen in the examples for Schlesich / Silesian language. Where have you checked this word whether it exist or not; here are some ghosty Pomakish words. Pomaks want Pomakish in the schools. Wikipedia must be updated, not to repeat what is told before. Thanks for your understanding. Manaviko (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Manaviko: Please demonstrate that 'Pomakish' is a recognised WP:COMMONNAME. I can see 'Pomakian', 'Pomak', and other convolutions as being equally as viable. You've produced one source for 'Pomakish': essentially written by someone who is not a native Anglophone. Do you have any reliable sources (English language linguists, etc.) using this nomenclature? Please read WP:NOR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to complicate the desire of development of Wikipedia. What I wrote is not something I invented, it is some word already being used, just like its fellow Pomakisch in German and another Germanic language Swedish as Pomakiska. The rules are to simplify the life! For such small area languages there is such namings are also being for Laz language as LAZ-ISH, and also Lasich in German. I ãm not going to thank this time. I never thought that would be sth. against public interest! Manaviko (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Manaviko: To reiterate, this is English language Wikipedia and such decisions have absolutely nothing to do with 'complicating' things for you. Compare the English language nomenclature for just a few other Slavic languages against their German counterparts: Russian to Russisch; Ukrainian to Ukrainisch; Polish to Polnisch; Serbian to Serbisch; Silesian to Schlesisch; Pomeranian to Pomoranisch (oder Ostseeslawisch); Rusyn to Russinisch. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic resource dependent on reliable sources in the English language - not German, French or Chinese nomenclature - therefore we don't create our own 'guestimates' according to what we imagine to be correct. The fact is that you are 'inventing' words. WP:NOR is policy, full stop. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy: We'll have to wait a couple of years to be agreed then. Full wait. Manaviko (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Manaviko: This has nothing to do with agreeing on names. This is English Wikipedia, and we use the names that are used in English. It is not possible to conclude anything about the English name of a language from the German or the Swedish name or from the Slavic ending -ski. The "rules" you present are simply non-existant. The English names of Germanic languages (like Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Faroese, Dutch, Afrikaans) as well as Slavic languages (like Polish, Croatian, Montenegrin, Rusyn, Czech, Slovak) have lots of different endings. A Google search for "Pomakish language" (excluding Wikipedia hits) gives 12 hits, a search for "Pomak language" gives 143 hits]. The name in English of the language of the Pomaks is Pomak (just like the language of the Slovaks is called Slovak). --T*U (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In English the common designation used is Pomak for language and so on because it is the most neutral without any suffixes. Anyway the main bulk of this people speak a Slavic language that depending on point of view of the scholar is either of Bulgarian stock or closely related. The Pomak people themselves in Turkey see themselves as Turks and in Bulgaria and Greece also for the most part do to and are a people who are undergoing language shift to Turkish due to identification with Islam which is regarded as synonymous with a Turkish identity. Best stick with Pomak which is neutral as most of the scholarly world has regarding this ethnic group due to their complex identity. Best.Resnjari (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Pomak dialect per "Ethnologue" (under "Bulgarian"):
"The Pomak dialect spoken in Greece is reportedly similar to Serbian and Bulgarian; geographical dialect variation toward each." [Emphasis my own.]
It's 'Pomak' or 'the Pomak dialect', and its relationship to Slavic languages is unclear. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the classification amongst scholars is, my point is to all that Pomak is to be used for the English article. Words using the word Pomak that have suffix's like ski or ish are best avoided (unless for example it is directly cited within the name of a Pomak organisation etc and only mentioned in such contexts) as then we get into these type of unproductive exchanges, instead of discussing how to make the article better. Pomak is best in English and used by most scholars writing in the English language. For those interested about issues in the Balkans about language and identity, or its realignment regarding some ethnic or linguistic groups in the Balkans see a excellent academic article by Victor Friedman [19] .Best.Resnjari (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Er, that's essentially what I'm arguing. Please see Google Ngram for Pomak and Pomakish here. "Pomakish" doesn't exist in any form. The only Google Scholar usage of 'Pomakish' can be found here, and it's actually only a translation of a Greek dictionary. In opposition, Google Scholar has multiple entries for Pomak as both the ethnic group and the language here... therefore, there are no arguments for introducing original research. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. My comments above were for any other editors coming along and bringing such issues up again. Pomak is the overall word to be used here as per the overwhelming scholarship in the English. Those advocating to the contrary need to take this matter into account. That's all on my part. Best everyone.Resnjari (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. This is one for the archives. Unless there's some dramatic shift in nomenclature (which I'm sure we'll all be aware of), there is no argument for any other convolutions. Cheers, all. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pomaci[edit]

This kind of attitudes show us one more time that Pomakish people have no right to be represented as Pomakish people, a population by their own, instead of being shown as only a small group, this must be why their proper name cant' find a place to put, but only in other languages. I condemn it Manaviko (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple names are there because sizable communicates of varying size of the Pomaks are found apart from Bulgaria, in Turkey and Greece too. Overall the majority of Pomaks in all these countries are moving toward assimilating and self identifying as Turks. In the Bulgarian census their numbers have gone down by a big ammount. In Greece the Pomak community sees itself as one with the Turkish community and only a small number see themselves as fully separate. While in Turkey, Pomaks whose heritage is indigenous to Turkish Thrace are still undergoing language shift to varying degree while those that have settled on the Turkish mainland (Anatolia) the assimilation process has sped up much more and they see themselves as Turks. I placed a link to Friedman's articles about ethnicity and its realignment due to religion in the above thread. There are many cases where this has happened within the region. For example Orthodox Albanian speakers (Arvanites first, now the majority of Orthodox Albanian speakers from Albania transitioning to Greek identity and language due to many having taken on Greek citizenship and having migrated to Greece in the past 2 decades). Same with Muslim Greek speakers etc. Anyway the word Pomak is the choice of much scholarship within the English speaking world as it is neutral. Due check out the article, it will in part answer some of your concerns.Resnjari (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pomaks. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits 15 September[edit]

Ninjoust: Please explain the reason for not following WP:BULGARIANNAMES. Also please explain how Arab script is relevant here. Also please read WP:BRD. When your bold edit was reverted, the next step should not be edit war, but discussion in the talk page. --T*U (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Jingiby (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pomaks. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pomaks&oldid=1206430870"