Talk:Pomaks/Archive 1

Comments

Pomakist propaganda and corrections needed! if we are ever to get NPOV

The article is *now* quite biased and unacceptable! While there certainly have been occasions of mistreatment of pomaks, and even short periods in history in which this was government policy (most notably in certain decades in late 20th century which period is not even mentioned in the article!), the current text seems to concentrate only on the instances of negative legacy and leaves the wrong overall impression of constant oppression of the pomaks. Also an argument is made generally against the credibility of bulgarian historiography on this issue, by citing an instance of a single exalted nationalist-oriented author. This is totally unacceptable as the bulgarian historical science has all the quality control of an academic tradition and it is peer-reviewed as part of the international community of history scholars.

I am not well enough acquainted with the pomak history so I will not edit but just ask the following questions: Has the theory of compulsory islamization really been discredited? At best, it might be disputed by the authors cited but this does not equal to acceptance by most specialists. What about the well-known data of islamization expeditions in the Rhodopes in 16th century? The argument that Ottomans didnt attempt islamization in general does not stand since isolated cases deviating from the general practice might appear due to particular reasons. For example the islamisations of 16th century have been linked with the war with the Venetians in the Aegean sea and the threat that liberating christian armies could land in the Rhodope area.

Are Pomak origins truly obscure? I would think that it is fairly easy to establish connections with the other ethnicities of the region by detailed linguistical study of their dialects, and of their religious and pagan customs. I would think that this has been already done to a good degree, just somebody needs to dig into the scientific literature.

Then, can we argue that Pomak identity is separate (not Muslim Bulgarians but self-identified "Pomaks") when in fact there is no single accepted identity among the pomaks? To quote from the reference 11 by an austrian scholar:

"[In 1990s] Broadly speaking, three tendencies of Pomak self-definition arose. The first was to adopt a Turkish identity - a phenomenon located primarily in the Western Rhodopes (Chech) and the Mesta valley, and also in the Eastern Rhodopes (Region of Kurdzhali), where Pomaks were becoming increasingly assimilated to the predominantly Turkish environment there. (Kalyonski 1993:126) A second tendency, but this time in the opposite direction, was to accept the nation-state designed identity, that is to see oneself as ethnically Bulgarian. More often than not, this correlated with sympathy for or membership in the Bulgarian Socialist Party - the party which succeeded the former ruling Bulgarian Communist Party.

A good example of the second tendency can be provided by the small and isolated village of Zaburdo situated in the northern slopes of the Rhodope mountains. The village is known as a 'red' village and its population which is entirely Pomak calls itself Bulgarian. There is even an initiative to build a Christian chapel in the village.

A third tendency is to refuse to adopt either a Bulgarian or a Turkish orientation, but to cling to a distinct and Pomak-specific ethnic consciousness. Such Bulgarian Muslims would call themselves Pomaks, Achryane, Muslims and so on. As far as I know this tendency has its greatest spread in the Central Rhodopes around the towns of Chepelare and Smolyan."

In conclusion I would say that the wikipedia article should be seriously overhauled to find a NPOV. Pomaks shouldn't be presented through only one of the identities that they assume or are assigned to them by their neighbours. Please see an older version of the article from 2004 presenting the "bulgarian muslim" interpretation as well as the treatment of the issue in Turkey and Greece. This information is missing from the current article.

It is best to certify the known facts of origin of pomaks, and then explain that their modern identity has not found a monolithic base yet, and describe the major choices different pomak groups have taken, as well as how they are predominantly seen by the groups they interact with. The modern history of the pomaks should either be expanded to include also the time-periods and economy and social narrative outside of the confrontation with the bulgarian christians, and to include also the history of the groups which are in present-day Greece and Turkey, or the current text should be shortened somewhat and given a corresponding title "Post-Ottoman attempts for Christianization" or Re-conversion or whatever. Koliokolio 01:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is a work in progress; as such obviously much has still to be treated. The article is massively sourced, all of which awnser to WP:RS. So regards your arguments this article non being NPOV, I'll take it as a joke. As for the origin of all my sentences in the period, they're all sourced, every single one. I've already discussed with other Bulgarian editors, that seemed satisfied how the article was developing. I advice you to read WP:NPOV; it doesn't mean that all you don't like is POV.--Aldux 12:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

definitions of Pomaks/Muslim Bulgarians

Hmm... it's not clear to me what this page is trying to accomplish if this population doesn't want to be called Pomaks. On the other hand, if not all of them are Bulgarians, then the lead section should not equate them with "Muslim Bulgarians". Further, the integration of Torbesh in here sounds very much like Bulgarian nationalism, and it looks like Macedonian nationalists might disagree. --Joy [shallot] 17:54, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BUT there are Torbeshi in Bulgaria also. And they are definitely not Macedonians. Also Macedonian Torbeshi themselves don't have quite a "Macedonian" consciousness as I have personally noticed. What are we to do now - make two sections? Macedonian Torbeshi and Bulgarian Torbeshi? It is so simple - Islamization in Bulgaria and Macedonia took place in 16-18th centuries. At that time distinctive Macedonian nationality was not formed yet, so all Muslim communities on those territories are reffered to as "Bulgarian Muslims". The Macedonian nationality was later formed among the Christian population of Macedonia. Slavic-speaking Muslims stayed isolated from those processes, though. Pomatsi, torbeshi, marvatsi, ahriani, pogantsi, poturnatsi - these were just ethnographical names of certain Bulgarian Muslim communities. It's all the same people. When some of them re-settled in Turkey, they all merged together. NOTE! This argument is NOT about Macedonian nation and Macedonian consciousness.

And please define phrase "Muslim Slavs"! I always thought Slavs (as a common ethnos) stopped being Slavs in 7-10th cent. and turned into separate Slavic peoples - Poles, Slovaks, Russians, Croats, Bulgarians, etc.

Not my invention... but a bit further to the west, the South Slavs weren't necessarily clearly nationally defined before Islamization, so there the term makes some sense. Maybe it was overstretched in this case, I don't know. --Joy [shallot]

Btw if we have to be objective, most Pomaks in Turkey don't have Turkish consciousness. They speak Turkish (cause they're not allowed to education in mother-tongue), but consider themselves a distinctive ethnicity - just Pomak. Ogneslav 12:50, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would cut off the mention about the Pomaks in Macedonia altogether, they are anyway much more often called Torbesh. Where exactly did you find Torbeshes in Bulgaria, Ogneslav? I would really like to know that. The same regards the difference between Poturnak and Pomak, I am not too happy with it either.

And Joy, origin is one thing, consciousness is a completely different thing. The Pomaks are the descendants of Christian Bulgarians who adopted Islam (otherwise they wouldn't speak Bulgarian, would they). As for their current consciosness - they can pick whichever they choose, I don't really give a damn. VMORO

I'm simply asking that we delineate information that is 300 year old from that which is current. If the Pomaks whose ancestors moved to Turkey are now Turks or just Pomaks, then they are not Bulgarians. One can say that their ancestors *were* once Bulgarians, but that is a fair bit different. --Joy [shallot] 19:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Joy, read the article about Montenegrins - some of them say they're Serbs, others say they're just Montenegrins... what are they?

The page on Montenegrins doesn't begin by saying "Montenegrins (Serbs from Montenegro)", which would be analogous to what this page does. --Joy [shallot]

Except that it prefers one option over the most without elaborating. There is very little census data here. --Joy [shallot]

There are NO "options" here. There is just facts - historical, lingual, ethnographic. This is what matters, not what anybody feels like and declares like. If I feel Chinese would that make me really Chinese, or I'll still be Bulgarian? Because my parents are still Bulgarian and I still speak Bulgarian. When I say "pomak" I mean "Muslim Bulgarian". There might be some "Muslim Slavs" - I don't care about them, write about them if you want, but it's gonna be a whole new article. This article here is about Pomaks, i.e. about Muslim Bulgarians and this is what it was ment about, as it is put in the "Bulgarians" category on the Slavic peoples page. Simple!

And right now I'm editing this article, to replace "Pomak" with "Muslim Bulgarian", as the former is intensely pejorative and incorrect Ogneslav 21:36, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Simply make the article clear enough and there won't be such questions raised. --Joy [shallot]

Bosniaks and Pomaks (I say this out of any argument, but just as additional comment in case you're interested in the field) are quite different as social and ethnic/ethnographic phenomena. Bosniaks live in Bosnia. Supposedly they are descendents of converted to Islam Serbs and Croats. They have their specific dialect, customs and ethnography. These are elements of ethnic identification. Unlikely, Muslim Bulgarians live dispersed, don't share common territory and are ethnographically heterogeneus. In most cases Muslim villages are scattered inbetween Christian villages and many have mixed population. As a result, each group of Pomaks shares common dialect and folklore with neighbouring Christians and is quite different from Pomaks in other regions. If you go to the Rhodope mountains you'd see those couples of villages, one Muslim, one Christian, where many people share a family name. Then you might hear that actually the villages were founded by two brothers and later on one was converted, the other wasn't.

I can speak a lot on this topic and if you ask me how do I know so much about Pomaks - I live with a one. Ogneslav 00:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, you'll find that the Bosnians are not dissimilar in this aspect: but they often changed religions ages ago so they had more time to develop differences in speech and accept some Islamic traditions. And then in the late 19th century, there was a big sweep of romantic nationalism that exacerbated those differences along national lines. Further, the Bosniak nation was formed where they were reasonably concentrated, but various groups elsewhere were "left out" and remain Muslims by nationality. Also, you'll still find many Serbs or Croats who claim all of the Bosniaks as part of their nation, but this is considered to be nationalist. There do seem to be valid reasons to compare with Pomaks, and reasons to explain why the link of modern-day Pomaks and Bulgarians is more intrinsic than for other Muslim Slavs. --Joy [shallot]

Please take a note on this - opposite terms are "Pomaks and Christians". There is no such thing as "Pomaks and Bulgarians", because Pomaks ARE Bulgarians. If you say that to a Pomak he would get really offended. It sounds like "Negros and Americans". Today the majority of Pomaks in Bulgaria have Bulgarian-Slavic names, some of them converted to Christianity, most are non-religious and have absolutely same life style as Christian Bulgarians.

Older Pomaks call Christian Bulgarians "kaur" which comes from Turkish "gâvur" (infidel). In Pomak dialects there is no word for "Bulgarian". So you see - those people don't have a sense of ethnic, but just religious difference with Christian Bulgarians. And finally I don't find you competent enough to carry this argument, as you've never been to Bulgaria and have never talked with a single Pomak. So you only have two choices - dive deep into your own guessworks or just trust us. Assuming that all we tell you is "lies" and "nationalist propaganda" is a bit perverted, isn't it Joy? :) Ogneslav 21:36, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Again, explicate this in the article, and don't leave space for guesswork. I'm not assuming that you're telling me lies or nationalist propaganda, I'm just asking you to be clearer. --Joy [shallot]

Joy, if I can remind you - the Bosniaks became such under the threat of Serbian nationalism in the 1980s and the 1990s, until then they were Undetermined Yugoslavs, Turks, Muslims, etc. They became a separate nation because YOU made them such. The Pomaks currently do not have the consciousness of a separate ethnic group and I think it is very inappropriate for you (and anyone else who's not a member of that community or even a Bulgarian) to come and tell me they should have that consciousness.

Where did I "tell you that they should have that consciousness"? I most certainly did not. --Joy [shallot]

You proclaimed them "a South Slavic people" a couple of days ago. This is pretty much the same. Anyway, I have removed the disputed parts of the article, which refer to Turkey and Macedonia, so can we all sleep happily now? ~~VMORO

Are Bulgarians not a South Slavic people? I most certainly did not omit the statement that they originate from the Bulgarians in the same edit. I did rephrase it as I thought would be more neutral -- lacking more certain information. --Joy [shallot]

You are playing with something that you don't wanna be playing with, Joy. This is an internal matter of MY COUNTRY, you can do any kinds of expermients in ex-Yugoslavia - you can invent a Macedonian, a Bosniak, a Goran, a Bunjevci, a Martian nation if you want, that's you own business, but don't come and tell other people what they should do. May be you should try to go to Albania and advise people there on the establishment of three separate nationalities based on the three main religions. c

And maybe you should lay down the crack pipe, eh? This is completely unwarranted. I'm simply rationally discussing and comparing things and (to use your own words) you think it's appropriate to attack me for some imaginary infringement of your nationality? Please try reading text, not reading into it. --Joy [shallot]

Then do not imply that they are a separate people (I'll remind you that you wrote that in one of your edits), Bulgarians tend to be a little sensitive about these things after the *Macedonian question*. And make a note that I never supported (and don't support now) the inclusion of the Torbeshes and the Pomaks in Turkey in this article. The second of the two looks more like wishful thinking on the part of Ogneslav. ~~VMORO

83.251.54.150 08:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC) We are a separate nation (at least the Rhodopean Pomaks). If not so, why do you hide the results of the genetic research and why do you hide the results from the research in the mosque and the small mosque graveyard in Kochan that you explored during the Communism and later again in 1993/1994? Give me just one reason why do you hide it?

This is what prompted my editing in the first place. If the terms are different, then they should stay different, and be explained why they're different. If they're the same, then they should stay the same, and be explained why they're the same. --Joy [shallot]

People, people, let's just all calm down. GeneralPatton 14:21, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am very calm actually. This is all just an argument. I don't take it personally and I don't mind it personally. I admire Joy for his work here. Maybe sometimes he goes too far, but I know it's only his good intentions in the back. Still, insisting that "you brother is not truely your brother" is not the best feeling one can give you, so can we please really stop that? Ogneslav 21:36, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not insisting on such an assertion, I'm only insisting that we need to have articles that are ambiguous where necessary, and unambiguous where it's not necessary. Notice how I did not change anything that you guys committed since you started explaining, nor will I. --Joy [shallot]

For what, I said, you have my admirations. Ogneslav 09:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

reverted to previous version in order to restore a broken wiki-link and because editors did not list rationale for deletion of "tortured" origin of name and for the inclusion of "macedonian ethnicity and language" in the case of the muslim bulgarians. Trunchanin 06:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation page or article?

Should this be a disambiguation page or an article? Should this information be elsewhere if it is a dab page? At the moment it's an article with a disambiguation tag, so that's bad. TimBentley (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Languages

Aldux, you don't seriously believe that Pomaks speak only their own dialects. They speak the standard languages in the areas in which they live, namely Greek, Bulgarian and Turkish, and in Greece, (almost) all Pomaks speak Greek and Turkish. This is from the Greek Helsinki Monitor report. --Tēlex 10:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't exactly got the meaning of your edit. I thought it meant something regarding the structure of Pomakci. Considering what you said, I'll edit the text.--Aldux 11:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain if I should add Greek; it's official only in Western Thrace, and Pomaks even there when they use a second language the use Turkish, and often simply don't know Greek, even if it's official, or never speak it. Tell me your view.--Aldux 11:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Pomaks in Western Thrace do speak greek. I live in the region, have pomak friends, know greeks who live in pomak villages and teachers who work in the area. As far as "...Ancient Greek Pomax, that stands for drinker." is concerned, even if it is true (which I don't believe it is) does it really belong in an encyclopedia?Adamantios 11:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Adamantios. When you say you don't believe it's true, do you mean 1) that Greek authors go around writing such things 2) that the etymology is true? If it's the last, I thought that it appeared quite obvious the theory was bullshit; but I felt it important to mention it since Bulgarians, Greeks and Turks have attempted to appropriate themselves of the Pomaks by creating pseudo-histories, and the etymologies are part of this process of appropriation. And they are all sourced or double sourced; if the sources I used believed them worth mentioning, why shouldn't they be for wikipedia?--Aldux 11:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aldux. I meant the second and agree that all three have played political games on the Pomaks. It seems I misinterpreted the message conveyed. Maybe it needs to be rephrased :) Adamantios 12:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Talking of possilbe Greek Etymologies, or at least etymologies based on Greek which are probably highly spurious, why is the hippomakhoi (ιππομάχοι) folk-etymology missing? Those who fight from horseback - rather fitting for a "Thracian" tribe.--5telios 13:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What's this Pomakci thing exactly? As far as I know the Pomaks don't speak a unified dialect but a number of related Rhodope dialects (clasified as Eastern Bulgarian according to the yat border). The most widespread is the Smolyan vernacular ([1]). Pomakci is, as far as I can determine by the suffix -ci, a Turkish name, and referring to the dialects spoken by the Pomaks as a single one is wrong. The correct adjective in Bulgarian would be pomashki, though I wouldn't recommend it, being largely an exonym. Possibly something along the lines of Language: Several related Eastern Bulgarian dialects would be most correct. Todor→Bozhinov 18:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

83.251.54.150 07:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC) When talking about Pomaks and languages you should have in mind Veda Slovena too. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veda_Slovena and the external links of that article.

(no title)

What occurred to the Pomaks during the communist era? hubertgui@yahoo.de —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.160.220.214 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 11 September 2006.

83.251.54.150 08:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC) In 1972 their villages and towns were occupied by the Bulgarian Army and the Pomaks were forced to change their names with Christian ones.

Merge request

I would be disinclined to support the merging of this article with Bulgarian Muslims, given that Pomaks outside Bulgaria may take issue with such a designation. On the other hand, the article in question claims that the term Pomak is pejorative. I assume this applies only to Bulgaria, as the Greek Pomaks use it routinely as a self-identifying term.--Kékrōps 08:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Pomaks in Bulgaria also use the term routinely to identify themselves. I have yet to see a Pomak that idenitfies himself or herself as a Bulgarian Muslim (balgaromohamedanin), only Bulgarian nationalists use that term to refer to them. --77.85.175.252 17:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There isn`t such a thing as pomak ethnic group.They all are ethnic Bulgarians but many of them have Muslim self-determination.Some of the most famous pomaks who have Bulgarian self-determination are: father Bojan Saraev who was born in a pomak(Muslim) family but later accepted the Christianity,Hamid Rusev who lives in Chicago and is a very rich man known also with the fact that he is publisher of newspaper "Bulgaria".Another exaples for pomaks(Muslims) with Bulgarian self-determination are Sh. Capargiev and R. Denzinov(sponsor of Slavia-the Bulgarian football club that won the amateur championship of the USA).Some pomaks have non-Bulgarian counsciousness because the communist regime commited many repressions against them and didn`t allow them to practice their religion.This led many of them to feel themeselves more Muslims than Bulgarians.The case with the pomaks is almost the same like with the Bosniaks.They all are Slavs converted to Islam and define their nationallity as Muslims because for them the religion is more important than the ethnic belonging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.87.2.250 (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a very thoughful text on the problem of the use of the name Pomak as the heading of the Wikipedia article. And I was also about to propose the use of Bulgarian Muslims as the title until I read this discussion item. It would be nice to find a way to give proper right to the Bulgarian Muslims who do NOT see themselves as Pomaks.

I have been doing this gently by way of footnotes to the body of the article. (MihalOrela (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

NPV

Why was the information about Islam on the Balkans during 7th and 8th century removed? I pointed the source! Thought Wikipedia was neutral!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soft needed (talk • contribs) 17:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Do the Pomaks consider themselves Bulgarians or a unique ethnic group (how do they register in censuses, etc.)? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Some consider themselves Turks, others Bulgarians, third have no opinion and become confused when asked and yet fourth claim they are a separate ethnic group. This is because nobody has done a serious and neutral point of view research on this topic which is also true about the way Pomaks converted to Islam. The Bulgarian POV is that the Pomaks were forced to convert to Islam by the Turks, which is based on several fictional books, but recent studies and discoveries suggest that Muslim lived on the Balkan Peninsula long time before the Ottomans came and that a great number of the Pomaks converted to Islam voluntarily because of financial benefits. As of the ethnicity of the Pomaks, I don't have any sources, pointing and prooving that the Bulgars ever settled in the Rhodope Mountains, mostly inhabited by Pomaks. And it seems that the Pomaks have no Proto-bulgarian blood while they have more Thracian blood. As of the Chech region, it is an absolute chaos. Take for example the village of Kochan: in the past 100 years several alien families have settled there: Kamboshevi from Bosnia, Dautevi and Zaimovi from Albania and Arapovi from the Arabic countries. They have been assimilated by the local people and this just for 100 years. For sure there have been more alien families settling in that village over the years, especially when we recall that the village was ruled by the Ancient Macedonians, Romans, Byzantians, Bulgarians and Ottomans. Not to forget the invasions of the Goths, Kumans, Pechanegs... So it is absolute madness to talk about a specific ethnic group, associated with the Pomaks. At least in the Chech region. These Pomaks are not Bulgarians, not Greeks, not Macedonians, not Serbs, not Albanians, not Turks and not even Pomaks - they are extremely different in every single village. They speak different dialects, have different rituals, traditions and cultures. If you compare the Pomaks from the villages of Valkosel, Slashten, Kochan, Vaklinovo and Ribnovo, you'll figure out that they are extremely different and they live just several kilometers away from each other. I always laugh when politicians or people, not familiar with the subject, claim that Pomaks are Bulgarians. They are too different among them to belong to certain ethnic group. Actually that's the reason why there are so many names for the Pomaks: Ahriani, Marvatsi, Chitatsi, Torbeshi... --Soft needed (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the last is just the Turkish POV, which is even more funny than the Bulgarian one (as for the "recent studies"; sorry, I controlled thoroughly and they simply don't exist; the "financial benefits" is especially funny; which benefits in an area that before the Ottomans arrived was dominated by Christian powers?). Passing to the census, from the sources I read quite a time ago the Pomaks identify quite a lot with Turks in Turkey and Greece, while in Bulgaria it's more complicated: they suffered quite a lot under the Communists, and this brought to quite a strong wave of identification with Turks and its party in the 1990s, but this resentment seems to have weakened over the years.--Aldux (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems that you've read less about Pomaks than about TNO (Trans-Neptunian Objects). The pre-comunistic sources point that many Bulgarians and Greeks converted to Islam because they wanted to have a better attitude in the society and keep their possessions and posts. I will give you one very respected and reliable source: read Vasil Kanchov - Македония. Етнография и Статистика - 2. Българи мухамедани. Read the very first paragraph: Видѣхме, че доклѣ турцитѣ покорявали Балканския Полуостровъ, много отъ градското население се е турчило за да спаси живота си и имота си. Това е ставало и въ българскитѣ земи. [1] Потурченитѣ граждани обаче скоро се сливали съ турскитѣ прѣселенци и изгубвали езика си. Слѣдъ покоряваньето на Полуострова султанитѣ се грижили да осигурятъ османската власть въ новопокоренитѣ земи; затуй освѣнъ прѣселяванье на колонисти изъ Азия, тѣ се старали да налагатъ исляма на новопокоренитѣ християни. Потурчаньето по селата е ставало обикновено съ насилие, макаръ че понѣкога са помагали и облагитѣ, съ които се ползували мухамеданитѣ като владѣеща класа. Now, is that funny? I am sorry, but the forced conversion idea was coined by the Communists to serve as a tool for their nationalistic ideas. Yes, forced conversion did occur to some degree, but if you read the same author, the same chapter, page 42, you will figure out that such conversions were often ordered by Christians, such as the conversion of Chepino, often given as a proof of Turkish brutality and terror. --Soft needed (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've read quite a lot on the topic. I don't read Bulgarian, even if I know about the 19th century scholar Kanchov, but you must have misunderstood me; I said there is also a Bulgarian POV, and this is reflected by what was mostly the myth (mostly) of forced conversion (which wasn't invented by the Communists, but originated earlier among Bulgarian nationalists). And actually, I also believe that most conversions came from financial considerations. As for it being funny or not, can't say, I don't read Bulgarian.--Aldux (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, I pointed that forced conversions occurred, but what Communists did was that they ruled out all other ways of converting to Islam. --Soft needed (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Teteven is not in Southern Dobruja/Dobrogea. There were few Pomaks resettled there from their Greek border villages after 1948, but Southern Dobruja, which links to Romanian Cadrilater, has never been a traditional Pomak area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traianos2 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tamrash

There is a mistake about the agha of Tamrash - it rulled between 1878 and 1886. So the embassy in Plovdiv was established in 1880 and not in 1890. --Chech Explorer (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

External references to the literature

I have split the reference into two parts:

• Райчевски, Стоян. Българите мохамедани. С., УИ, 1998
• Raichevsky, Stoyan. The Mohammedan Bulgarians (Pomaks), Bulgarian Bestseller — National Museum of Bulgarian Books and Polygraphy, Sofia, 2004. Translated from the Bulgarian by Maya Pencheva. ISBN 9549308413.

Now I can use the English text to add to the Wikipedia article when necessary. (MihalOrela (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

I would also like to make the observation now that this text which is Bulgarian Bestseller is also very authoritative on the Pomaks. Hence, it is also surprising that it has NOT been cited in the body of the article. I hope to remedy this by tracking correlated evidence already given in citations. (MihalOrela (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

Problem with References 9 & 10

The reference used is an external link to the Library of Congress and contains the following short text

A Country Study: Bulgaria, "Pomaks", (1992)

Bulgaria

Pomaks

Pomaks--a term that loosely translates as collaborators- -were the descendants of ethnic Bulgarians who accepted the Islamic faith during Ottoman rule, mostly between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. In 1990 about 150,000 Pomaks lived in mountain villages in southern and southwestern Bulgaria. They were chiefly employed in agriculture, forestry, and mining. Because of their relative isolation in the mountains, the Pomaks did not become ethnically mixed with their coreligionist Turks during the occupation, and they largely retained their Slavic physical features. Because the Ottoman Turks showed little interest in Pomak lands, and because the Pomaks were converted rather late, most of their traditional Bulgarian customs remained intact. Thus, for example, the Pomaks never learned to speak Turkish. The Bulgarian government always considered the Pomaks as Bulgarians rather than as a separate minority.

As a result of the 1972-73 assimilation campaign, about 550 Pomaks were arrested and imprisoned at Belene in north central Bulgaria and in Stara Zagora. Unrest flared in 1989 when Pomaks from the Gotse Delchev area in southwest Bulgaria were refused passports that would have enabled them to emigrate with the Turks. Some Pomaks in southwest Bulgaria were subjected to a second name change because the names they received the first time were not definitely Bulgarian. Riots, work stoppages, and hunger strikes ensued. According to reports from the Plovdiv region, local officials banned public gatherings of more than three Pomaks and forbade residents to leave their villages.

Data as of June 1992

I have problems with this.

• 1 Who is the author?

• 2 The factness of the text is not in dispute; the reason for its citations (2) in the article is!

• 3 Can we not use one of the many scholarly works already cited in the Wikipedia article?

(MihalOrela (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

The first use of the Library of Congress citation was to the text

«but they are generally believed to be Bulgarians who converted to Islam during the period of Ottoman rule in the Balkans»

I have commented the citation out and replaced it with the scholarly verifiable:

"Only one thing is indisputable — that the name Pomak has originated on Bulgarian territory. In Turkish historical literature it appears after 1878, i.e., after the arrival of the Muslim refugees from Bulgaria. It does not appear among the names in the tax registers for donations or other documents about Bulgarian territories during the Ottoman period. It does not exist in Greek too. In contemporary Greek historiography it appears after WW II..."
Raichevsky 2004, p.136

(MihalOrela (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

Again the Library of Congress reference for the text

The origin of the term "Pomak" is uncertain. For the Bulgarian scholars the term could derive either from the Bulgarian word pomagach (помагач), meaning "helper" (the most commonly accepted interpretation)

has been replaced by a scholarly verifiable resource:

"Today [in 2004] we still cannot answer convincingly the following rhetorical question:

"What is the origin of the name Pomak?", asked in the 1930s by the person who knows best the Mohammedan Bulgarians — Stoyu Shishkov. Instead of an answer he only gives the most popular opinion about the origin of the word Pomak — that it comes from pomagach 'helper'. But this explanation was given by Georgi S. Rakovsky in Forest traveler in 1857. These were, according to him, Bulgarian soldiers who helped the Ottoman Turks in their invasions and after that."
Raichevsky 2004, p.136-37

(MihalOrela (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

It seems that I have clobbered automatic referencing somewhere! I will try to sort it out as soon as possible. Any editors watching might help?

(MihalOrela (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

References

I need to get the references and notes and all the other stuff at the bottom of the article cleaned up. So I introduced the usual References section normally found on other Wikipedia articles. (MihalOrela (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

To simplify footnote referencing I am using the special Rp template (John Broughton, Wikipedia, the missing manual, 2008, p.43). (MihalOrela (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

I have added a comment to the effect that items in the Literature section ought to be moved to the References section if they are actually used as references in the article. This should tidy up the material considerably. (MihalOrela (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

Ахряни (Ahryani)

I have added in scholarly reference to the effect that

«Ahryani is the byname and self-appelation of the Mohammedan Bulgarians of the Rhodope region and Aegean Thrace. The greatest student of the Rhodope Mohammedan Bulgarians Stoyu Shishkov particularly stresses that the Christian Bulgarians in the Rhodope region never call their Muslim brothers and neighbors "Pomaks". They always call them "Ahryani". »
Raichevsky 2004, p.130

I also have added their proper Bulgarian name to complement the English:

Bulgarian: Ахряни, Ahryani

Maybe I should hide the Bulgarian language tag? (MihalOrela (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

I have added specific scholarly information as to important distinction to be made between the generic term Pomaks and the precise Bulgarian peoples of the Rhodope who still regard themselves as Ahryani:

The Pomaks (Bulgarian: Помаци, Pomatsi; Greek: Πομάκοι, Pomaki; Turkish: Pomaklar)

"The analysis of all sources about Mohammedan Bulgarians gives us ground to admit that the name Pomaks was initially used in a much narrower area. Its center must have been to the north of the Balkan Range, where it was probably born... But it didn't reach the Middle and Southern Rhodope region, where the local name Ahryani was preserved."
Raichevsky 2004, p.136

(MihalOrela (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

Etymologies

There is a lot of confusion about origins and about naming. The Etymology section is particularly confusing. It occurs to me that one way in which to separate out the various concerns is to include everyone in their own etymological subsection:

• Bulgarian Muslims various Pomaks... (especially the Pomaks today in Turkey)...
• Pomaks versus Ahryani... (sensitivities in Rhodope and Macedonian Greece)...
• The location of the Torbeshi...
• AND all the others NOT yet mentioned: Apovtzi, Babechene, Dilsuze, Kurki, Miatzi, Murvatzi, Poturnatzi, Skarnavtzi, Ulufi, Chechens, Cheslii, "Shops", ...

This will allow for contributions from focussed group who are familiar with their own Bulgarian Muslims' history and traditions.

If not enough information is provided for certain groups after a period of time then then can be re-merged.

(MihalOrela (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

Footnotes

I have reorganized the layout of the footnotes from 1 column to 3 columns. This is more compact and elegant. (MihalOrela (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC))

Pomaks vs Bulgarian Muslims

It is not proven that the Pomaks are Bulgarian Muslims so the article should not be neither merged with Bulgarian Muslims, nor redirected to it. Think only about the Armenian Paulicians settled in Bulgaria and converted to Islam. Are they Bulgarian too? Since when troublesome articles get deleted or redirected without consensus? If you can't help solving the problem, then do not delete! This is stupid. --Chech Explorer (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Are they Bulgarian too?" – Depends on what your definition of is is. All those ethnic essentialist speculation about what "the" Pomaks really "are" and all those grand theories about "their" alternative descent are silly nationalist games anyway. But that's secondary. Fact is: this article is a bad case of plagiarism and needs to go. Fact is also, the two articles cover the same group and are therefore POV forks of each other. If you can rewrite them in a way that avoids both problems, you're welcome; until then a redirect is better than a redlink. I don't care in the slightest where the article ends up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for Pomaks as well. I can't count the times someone has wanted to turn them into something that suits him - they've done that cause they are from those f...ing Turks, but than again - they are so unique, but yet part of the glorious BG nation - what the hell? I'd merge them under Pomaks with the notion that they're often referred to as BG Muslims with the text of the unplagiarized article.--Laveol ^T 20:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

A redirect to Bulgarian Muslims is no solution because then all problems from the Pomaks article will slowly migrate to the Bulgarian Muslims article. You click on Pomaks and you get redirected to Bulgarian Muslims. Then you do not agree with the content of that article or want to expand it, so you add info once present in the Pomaks article and slowly you get the old Pomak article under a new name - Bulgarian Muslims. So there is no point. Either leave the Pomaks article be or delete it. But again if you delete it, the quarrel will move to Bulgarian Muslims and Macedonian Muslims. --Chech Explorer (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Pomaks is the correct denominator, better work with this article and bring the views of all parties than use the one-source "Bulgarian Muslims"Hittit (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We also need to first of all make up our minds about whether we should treat all Pomak / Bulgarophone Muslim groups in one article. I think we should. The "Bulgarian Muslims article currently talks only of those within Bulgaria itself, ignoring those in Greece and elsewhere, although its sources seem to be talking of all these groups together. Is there any good reason for splitting up the treatment of these groups into different articles? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. All the material should be merged to Pomaks, which seems to be the most uncontroversial ethnonym, with the differing POVs expounded accordingly. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My idea is the same - everything should be in the Pomaks article. --Chech Explorer (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So, all parties agree? --Laveol ^T 10:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Feel free to start a rewrite under Pomaks. Until then, and only as a provisional measure, I've reinstated the redirect and I'll ask you guys to please not revert it to the copyvio/plagiarised text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free not to touch the Pomaks article!!! DO NOT REDIRECT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hittit (talk • contribs) 11:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is completely unrelated to the content issue of merging etcetera, it's about getting rid of a copyright violation, and I'll block you if you bring it back again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Your non-neutrality seems flushed in the toilet if there such thing as "Administrator abuse" I guess this should be it. Depending on your behaviour in the future we might consider the use of "an independent administrator" Hittit (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you please specify from which sources material have been copied, so that we know what to rewrite? --Chech Explorer (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It was cobbled together from many different sources, most of them actually mentioned in the references, but they all seemed to be copied verbatim in chunks of one or a few sentences. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I will start from scratch. Need some time - several hours to a few days. Regards --Chech Explorer (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Who's the smartass that made the Muslim Bulgarians a "Slavic-speaking Muslim nation"? Pomaks is just a regional ethnographic name for the Muslim Bulgarians in some regions: as far as I know, it's not even the native name of the Muslim Bulgarians of the Rhodopes, those are called ahryani for the most part. Now, what has happened to this article is a crime called pan-Islamic propaganda. Anything that differentiates this group from other Bulgarians would be the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TodorBozhinov (talk • contribs) 15:06, 5 November 2008

Well, the Bulgarians claim the Pomaks speak Bulgarian, the Macedonians claim the Pomaks speak Macedonian, the Greeks claim the Pomaks speak a separate Pomak language. Different points of view. The common is all these languages are Slavic. In order to neutralize the article we should avoid the use of controversial terms and instead use more general ones that do not spark quarrels with no end. This time lets make a good, neutral article about the Pomaks which satisfies all parties. It shouldn't be that big pain in the butt for the Bulgarians if we say Pomaks speak Slavic language because that's the truth (with some exceptions in Greece and Turkey). --Chech Explorer (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's not overdo it: Macedonian Muslims have a separate article and live in western Macedonia, i.e. they're vaguely related to the Rhodopean Bulgarian Muslims. The Greeks have their agenda, of course they won't treat the language of the Pomaks as Bulgarian — but if it's not Bulgarian, what is it? There are no other Slavic languages around, and it has a perfect continuum with other Bulgarian dialects in the region in all respects. Let's not devolve into extreme points of view, but the Greek national policy ("one state — one nation") simply doesn't allow for anything but a "Pomak language". That can be mentioned somewhere in the body text, but, as a marginal POV, it's not suitable for the intro. Overall, scholars agree: Pomaks are of Bulgarian origin and speak Bulgarian.Todor→Bozhinov 14:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I never said they don't speak Bulgarian, just to avoid any quarrels. I personally have no problem with Bulgarian instead of Slavic. --Chech Explorer (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw your latest edits to the page and I'm thinking about reverting some of them: why do you think Paulicians and Bogomils aren't Christians? They might not be Orthodox, they might be sectarians, but they cannot be said to be non-Christian, I believe. What are those "pagan Bulgarians" that you're referring to? I don't seriously think there could have been any pagan Bulgarians by the 15th century and later on: all Bulgarians were Christians, at least formally. Todor→Bozhinov 14:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There are many sources that point to the fact that some Pomaks were Paulicians and Bogomils. You can read Stoyan Raichevski's Mohammedan Bulgarians, Yordan Ivanov's Богомилски книги и легенди and many more. There are plenty of proofs that most heretics embraced the Islam during or after the conquest of the Balkans by the Ottomans. --Chech Explorer (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that Paulicians and Bogomils converted to Islam: but that they were "heretics" didn't make them non-Christians. Specifically, the change in religious allegiance of the Paulicians and Bogomils is pretty well studied: some became Catholics, some became Muslims, and a small group later embraced Protestantism (some Bulgarians in Transylvania that claimed they used to be Bogomils and were later Romanianized). The problem was that you referred to Paulicians and Bogomils as non-Christians by listing them next to Christians instead of under Christians. Todor→Bozhinov 14:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Uhm. "Who's the smartass that made the Muslim Bulgarians a "Slavic-speaking Muslim nation""? Yes, indeed, who? The word "nation" never once occurred in any version of the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Does that have to be discussed? If it has indeed never occurred, then I've simply misread something. Do I have to apologize to an imaginary smartass now? :D Simply strike it in your mind and go on: if it's apparent that it's bullshit, there's a high chance that it is indeed bullshit. Todor→Bozhinov 14:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources like: Йордан Иванов

You think Bulgarian PanSlavist literature professor is the ultimate authority on Pomaks or how the bulgarians were assimilated by the Greeks or to whom Macedonia really belongs? Any intention to use netural sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hittit (talk • contribs) 21:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You think you don't look like a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet at best? Todor→Bozhinov 12:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Pomak nation

Please, give reliable sources about existing of such nation. Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources. If no I will remove this stupid POV. Jingby (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am waiting, Hitrit!

Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Questionable sources, Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and Wikipedia:PSCI

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience or extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities. Any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources. An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. The material taken from such sources should not involve claims made about third parties. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance. Jingby (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources. Just because a source is not self-published does not automatically make it reliable. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of information about themselves as described below. Any contentious claims the source has made about third parties should not be repeated in Wikipedia, unless those claims have also been discussed by a reliable source. Jingby (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you have not clearly indicated which sources you declare as unreliable, I assume you disagree with all sources originating from the Pomaks themselves? You have reverted the article and removed the section where views by the Pomaks them selves could have been introduced, but you have still kept the references and in fact moved them in the beginnin of the article. There is a lot of mumbo jumbo about “fringe source”…you regard Pomaks and Pomak organisations or articles from different sources discussing Pomak self determination as fringed? You are only contradicting your self. I can send you a book of Bulgarian History from 1988 there you can read in private the "non-fringed" version of the National Republic’s official views, which you seem to still prophesise even in 2009. Hittit (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please Chech, this is not a place for private views. Provide reliable informarion that such theory really exists. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't you read [2]? It is not my fault that Rrostrom changed the wording after me, putting the source at the end of the passage. --Chech Explorer (talk) 07:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)