Talk:Pomaks

History

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)

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)

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)

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?

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)

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)

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)

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)

The so called Pomak flag

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)