From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pomaks article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	To-do list for Pomaks:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. Wikipedians in Turkey, Bulgaria or Greece may be able to help!

Contents 1 Comments 1.1 Bulgarian propaganda and distortions corrected 1.2 Pomakist propaganda and corrections needed! if we are ever to get NPOV 1.3 definitions of Pomaks/Muslim Bulgarians 1.4 Disambiguation page or article? 1.5 Languages 1.6 (no title) 1.7 Merge request

[edit] Comments

[edit] Bulgarian propaganda and distortions corrected

The article in its previous form was utterly biased and unacceptable.

Some people here have argued that this is not “lies and nationalist propaganda” and have accused other more objective outsiders as “not competent”.

To dismiss, diminish, and ignore the forceful assimilation campaign against the Pomaks is exactly what I call Lies and Nationalist propaganda and to undermine the bulk of western research on the Pomak issue, including reports by the Bulgarian Helsinki Comitee, is nothing but absolute incompetance.

Some have even go as far as saying that Pomaks are Bulgarians because some of them have Bulgarian names, and some have even become Christians.

Pomaks today have Bulgarian slavic names because they have been forced to have them! Some of them are Christian because they have been forcefully Christianized. When the democratic changes happened in BG in 1989 many of them returned to their previous renames as soon as possible.

Regarding the suffering and oppression of the pomaks we can read from the Carnegie Report on the conduct during the Balkan many such examples and on p.156 it clearly states:

To revive a consciousness of lost nationality in the minds of their kinsmen, the Bulgarians employed force and persuasion, persuasion of a type as brutal as force. The Commission is unable to cite any individual instance, but there is no reason for doubting those recorded in accounts emanating from Greek or Servian sources. The story of a witness returned from Macedonia is quoted in a despatch of August 21, transmitted by the Athenian correspondent of the Times:

The Moslems were ranged in groups. Each group was given some baptismal name, generally a name honored in the Bulgarian church or in Bulgarian history. An exarchist pope then passed from group to group and took aside each of his catechumens sui generis; and while sprinkling his forehead with holy water with one hand, with the other he compelled him to bite a sausage. The holy water represented baptism, the piece of sausage renunciation of the Moslem faith, since the Koran forbids the eating of pork. The conversion was completed by the issue of a certificate adorned with a picture of the baptism of Jesus, the price of which varied between one and three francs. A friend who arrived today from Thrace told me that what is happening in Macedonia is also happening there. He showed me two baptismal certificates. He added that the converted were obliged to give up their fez, and the converted women to walk in the streets with their faces uncovered.

In an official report to the Sub-Prefect of Kavadar, on March 2, 1913, a petty Servian official, Mr. Drakalovits, says:

At Pechtchevo (Maleche plateau) a special committee has been formed, with the Bulgarian Sub-Prefect, Chatoyev, as its President, and among its members John Ingilisov, the director of Bulgarian schools, and the priest, Chatoyev, the brother of the Sub-Prefect. This committee was instituted to convert all the Turks of Maleche to Christianity. By order of the committee, 400 peasants of the place were armed with muskets and sticks; they attacked Turks of the neighboring villages and forcibly led them into the church at Verovo, where they were all baptized. Finally on February 17, baptism was carried out at Beloro, where there were ten Turkish families and ten Bosnian (Servian) Mahometan families. Pechtchevo alone was spared, the reason being (so we were told) that the Sub-Prefect would not allow violence in the town. A Turk from Pechtchevo told us that every Turkish house had to pay two pounds for its protection. Four Turks who could not pay such a sum hanged themselves in despair in their houses. In the other Turkish villages conversions were not exacted, because the population was too poor, whereas the Turks at Pechtchevo were known to be rich.

I live in a predominantly Muslim area in Bulgaria, and statements that Pomaks consider themselves Bulgarian are simply heinous lies.

[edit] 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 islamizations 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 shouldnt 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)

[edit] 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 deffinitely 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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] (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.

[edit] 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)