Talk:Bulgarians in Turkey

Speedy deletion nomination of Bulgarians in Turkey

A tag has been placed on Bulgarians in Turkey, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.

This page has been recreated despite of it being deleted by Admin after a vote. The recreated page has the same issues as before see deletion discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bulgarians_in_Turkey The deletion template has been removed before, pls do not remove the AfD template until this is settled. Hittit (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, the article is sourced and makes very few claims concerning Bulgarians in Turkey today. It's mostly about the history of the Bulgarians once living in what is today Turkey. If that last sentence is bothering you, change it. One sentence in an article of this size doesn't justify deleting the whole article.--Ptolion (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I already objected to the deletion of the article and especially to its speedy deletion (?!) on my user talk, but here I am anyway. Needless to say it's ridiculous and the reason for it is some kind of animosity against the existence of such an article, not disagreement with its content. Speedy deletion is no way to solve a dispute, and this isn't even a dispute because Hittit isn't even making a point. Todor→Bozhinov 16:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"According to Ethnologue, 300,000 people in European Turkey speak Bulgarian,[1] though this number cannot be used to estimate the size of the Bulgarian minority as it predominantly includes ethnic Turkish refugees from Bulgaria." This how this article starts 1) What do the ethnic Turks from Bulgaria have to do with the 500 Bulgarians in Turkey? 2) Origins of the Pomaks is far from self evident to call them Bulgarians 3) The bizzare statistics presented for the ethnical composition of Eastern Thrace in 1918 by the nationalist Miletich is nothing but a ludicrous propaganda (+ it is single sourced). Eastern Thrace has been firmly under Turkish rule ever since the 14th century there is no way Miletich could have done such a wide scale one-man census for a territory inside the borders of Ottoman Turkey (foreign country). Giving such numbers and presenting these as facts is absurd. N.B. according to Miletich there wasn’t a single Turk in Eastern Thrace in 1918. Overall this article is as it was in the beginning of 2009 extremely confusing: who is this article about? A) Bulgarian Turks in Turkey? B) Pomaks in Turkey? C) History of ethnic Bulgarians in Turkey? D) The 500 Bulgarians currently comprising the Bulgarian diaspora in Turkey E) Bulgarian language speakers in Turkey? What real changes have you done before reposting this article? all disputed elements are still there Hittit (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, this is a content dispute and nothing of this is worthy of even discussing the deletion of the article. Then again, you haven't even mention some of those points: you went for deletion before attempting to resolve the issues. Here are my replies.

1. This is already explained in the sentence itself: the widespread knowledge of Bulgarian is not to be taken as the size of the community, it's mostly related to the large population of Bulgarian Turks and Muslim Bulgarians in Turkey. Nobody is claiming anything else and the article is actually extremely clear about it.
2. The Bulgarian origin of the Pomaks is well established among international scholars and is only disputed by fringe theorists. Wikipedia is not a welcome place for fringe theories and original research.
3. Miletich is a respected scholar and his work is a very reliable source for the population of Edirne Province before the Balkan Wars. I'm not sure what you mean by "according to Miletich there wasn’t a single Turk in Eastern Thrace in 1918". You might be colour blind, because the orange in Miletich's map covers almost half of the province and is clearly labeled as "Turks". His book focuses on the Christian population of the province, but where does he state that "there wasn’t a single Turk in Eastern Thrace in 1918"? You're obviously trying to misrepresent the source that has been used as unreliable.
4. This article is about Bulgarians in Turkey, their history, their subgroups and their related groups, whichever of the two you consider the Pomaks to be, they certainly ought to be discussed here. In your terms, that would be points B, C and D. As per your arguments (which I do not agree to) in last year's discussions, there is no mention of Bulgarian Turks in Turkey in this article even if they retain their Bulgarian citizenship. That is, no point A at all. Point E is a relevant mention in passing, but not the point of this article.

I think I was pretty clear. Todor→Bozhinov 18:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I should add to the above that the lead sentence is wrong. The Bulgarians referenced by ethnologue are Pomaks, as is obvious from reading source. Of course, the Bulgarian ethnicity is disputed so this should be mentioned in the lead, but the part about the Turks must be removed as this is not the object of the article.

Also your attacks against Miletich are very unconvincing, as apart from misreading the source, you have even got the date wrong (1918, instead of 1912). Nor have you presented any sources to contradict him.

In conclusion, this attempt at speedy deletion (a convenient way to avoid discussion, of course) is based on a single sentence which is not even correct. I ask you to withdraw this nomination which contributes nothing to Wikipedia. Kostja (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In light of Hittit's accusations it may be interesting to see the deleted version of the page, which was preserved by Todor on his user page. Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TodorBozhinov/Bulgarians_in_Turkey&oldid=262062831

As can be clearly seen, the deleted revision of the article contains many references to Turks from Bulgaria, which have now been all removed. Therefore that the accusation that the old article was simply recreated is completely false. Kostja (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The debate on Pomaks and their origins is currently in its own article separate from the article relating to Bulgarians. This is not the place to debate Pomaks. The Turks in Bulgaria and their forced migrations to Turkey are also irrelevant to this article. As in 2009 this article is again intentionally aiming to confuse and give the impression of a large ethnic Bulgarian presence in Turkey. The criteria for speedy deletion are clear see: “Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages”. This article is in between inaccurate information and total nonsense, what has really changed since the old deleted article? Same misinformation, same debate, which we have already had in 2009. Speedy deletion. Hittit (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to address any objections against your nomination.

1. There are different theories about the Pomaks and one of these is that they are Bulgarians. Regardless of the debates of the issue elsewhere, they need to included on this page, of course in a properly qualified way.

2. The Turks of Bulgaria and their forced migrations to Turkey are not mentioned anywhere in the article. This is no longer an issue.

3. The idea that this article aims to confuse the readers is absolutely wrong. It's clearly stated that most of the Bulgarian speakers in Turkey are Pomaks. This can be made even clearer and is in no case a reason to delete the article.

4. The criteria for speedy deletion are very clear indeed. They prohibit recreating an article with the same issue which were the original reasons for deletion. Which, I repeat again, is not the case.

I await real arguments for this nomination. Content disputes are not solved by deletion and please do not repeat again the disproved idea that the current article recreates the deleted version. Kostja (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hittit that this is not the place to discuss the Pomaks and the expelled Turks from Bulgaria. However there is a difference between discussing them and mentioning, and in this case mentioning them is necessary to make sense of the Ethnologue source. What I would like to know though is what exactly is inaccurate? Is it the whole article or just one sentence? Also, the arguments about speedy deletion look like wiki-lawyering and are not admissible. It is clear that article is substantially different from the deleted one and therefore the only way to delete it is to start a second AFD.--Ptolion (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ptolion how is it different than the old article? what has changed in terms of the reasons it was deleted in the first place? The Ethnologue source: "300,000 in Turkey (2001 Johnstone and Mandryk). Population includes refugees from Bulgaria" Pomaks, Sunni Muslim also speak Turkish...same linguistic abilities goes for the Turks from Bulgaria...relation to the 500 ethnic Bulgarians in Turkey defined by the Bulgarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs is what? Who is this article about? Hittit (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ethnologue refers to Pomaks, not to Turks speaking Bulgarian. As this site is intended to report on native languages, whether some Turks speak Bulgarian is irrelevant and is not mentioned at all in the source(they also relate these people to those in Greece). Your attempts to use this source as evidence that the article improperly refers to Turks from Bulgaria is a rather free and unsupported source interpretation and the attempt to base an article deletion on it is even more suspect.

As Todor mentioned above the article is about the historical Bulgarian presence in Turkey, Bulgarians today and the Pomaks. I still haven't received an answer what of the above is ground for deletion.

Kostja (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Българската общност в Република Турция. По данни на българските дипломатически и консулски представителства в Република Турция и на църковното настоятелство на Фондацията на българските православни църкви в Истанбул, понастоящем, българската православна общност в Република Турция наброява около 500 човека. В различни райони на Турция са се установили и живеят български граждани от турски произход. 2010 Министерство на външните работи. Do you see Bulgarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs to mention Pomak as Bulgarians in Turkey? This article should focus only on the ethnic Bulgarians in Turkey, which are part of the Orthodox Christian diaspora with centuries old history.Hittit (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not the only source in the article, so I don't understand what you mean by citing it. It is your personal interpretation that Pomaks should not be mentioned in the article which is not acceptable as they are considered Bulgarians by a significant number of researchers. Of course the opinion disputing this must be added. And again, what has this to do with the nomination for speedy deletion? Have your abandoned your claim? Then perhaps we should remove the tag. Kostja (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier, it is necessary to mention the Pomaks in order to make sense of Ethnologue. Mentioning them doesn't mean that the article is about them, nor does it make the article any less about the "real" Bulgarians in Turkey. I don't understand why this isn't getting through.--Ptolion (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Status and Advice

As reviewing administrator, I am not quite convinced that the article is close enough to be unquestionably covered by G4. I suggest first trying to find a compromise acceptable form of the article. Although I am not familiar with the subject, if there is another ethnic group of somewhat similar but confusable status, it would seem reasonable to mention the fact in the article. If no solution can be found, either take it to the Ethnic conflict noticeboard, or back to AfD . DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Speculative interpretation of the sources"

As I explained here, the interpretation of the source to say that all 300,000 quoted Bulgarian speakers are Pomaks is just as speculative. We cannot leave the number without some explanation because it would be hugely misleading, the reader would think all these Bulgarian speakers in European Turkey are ethnic Bulgarians. We cannot leave it as "though as most are Pomaks their classification as Bulgarians is disputed" either because it is inaccurate. Serious scholars agree that Pomaks are of Bulgarian origin, and "most are Pomaks" is more speculative than the fact that this number includes Turkish refugees.

Yes, I acknowledge my addition that the number includes Turks may be bordering on WP:OR, but in this case I believe it is more accurate and less controversial than the combined claim that most of the 300,000 are Pomaks (WP:OR as well) and that Pomaks are not classified as Bulgarians. I am aware that neither solution is perfect, but I think my wording is better, safer and clearer. — Toдor Boжinov — 14:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is nowhere saying spoken by Bulgarian Turks, so we can not write that in these number there are Turks. Pensionero (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The source doesn't say that most of these people are Pomaks either. Requesting WP:3O. — Toдor Boжinov — 15:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It saying all are Pomaks: "Language name - Bulgarian", "Language use - Spoken by Muslim Pomaks in Turkey and Greece. Also use Turkish [tur]." Pensionero (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you read this? I already said I'm not going to explain it again. Really, such basic discussions are a huge and truly unnecessary waste of time... — Toдor Boжinov — 16:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, Ethnologue quite clearly describes the Bulgarian speakers as Pomaks. First of all, Ethnologue deals only with native language use (see for example their entry on English). And secondly, their alternate name is called Pomak, as is their dialect. And it is mentioned that they are Muslim, after all. Other sources also quite clearly explain that there are very few Orthodox Bulgarians left in Turkey now. Summing up, the most logical conclusion of reading these sources is that most Bulgarian speakers in Turkey are Pomaks. As for your assertion that many of these are Turks from Bulgaria, it has no support whatsoever in the source and is basically original research (and contradicts the general principle of Ethnologue).

And yes, the ethnic identity of the Pomaks is disputed and it needs to be mentioned in the article. Kostja (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And the previous discussion doesn't actually address the current dispute. After all, many Pomaks in Turkey are refugees from Bulgaria, who live in the western provinces. No reason for them to be Turks, apart from unsourced speculations. Kostja (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this an article about Bulgarians in Turkey, Pomaks or Turks from Bulgaria in Turkey???

Pls consult the initial reason for the speedy deletion of this article. Having read the introduction section I remain baffled, who is this article about? There is already a separate article on Pomaks and Turks from Bulgaria.

Interpretation of source about 300,000 speakers

In this article, there seems to be a disagreement between me, Kostja, Pensionero and Hittit on the interpretation of the following Ethnologue pages: [1][2]. In particular, there seem to be differing opinions as to:

• whether all of the 300,000 Bulgarian speakers in European Turkey claimed in the source are Pomaks (as Pensionero claims)
• whether most of these people are Pomaks (as Kostja believes)
• whether this number includes Turks as well as Pomaks in an unknown proportion (which is my opinion)'

And also:

• whether the source actually can be used to source a claim that Bulgarian is spoken as a mother tongue by these 300,000

I'm resorting to RfC because Kostja and Hittit have pretty much stayed out of the talkpage (while reverting/editing nonetheless), and my discussion with Pensionero has been rather fruitless, as he seems to be refusing to acknowledge my points at all.

Thanks for any assistance, — Toдor Boжinov — 22:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Todor, there is a fundamental flaw in the Ethnologue source. It says 300 000 refugees from Bulgaria and then i a different sentence: alternate names: Pomak. According to the Turkish statistical bureau there were 462,767 Bulgarian born in Turkey, we know that this figure relates to a large extent to Turks from Bulgaria (we can list the waves of refugees if necessary). Therefore the figure of Ethnologue regarding Pomaks from Bulgaria is missleading and has not factual basis (we cannot expalain it from where these Pomaks came since these will be more than the Turks coming from Bulgaria). Secondly some one has used figures presented in a Turkish internet newspaper Milliyet which states that there are some 600 000 Pomaks in Turkey, to some regarded as Turks and to some regarded as Slavs (translation). It does not state that these are from Bulgaria or Bulgarians. In this source I fail to see the name of the author or sources of the figures. In any stance the presented figures are not admissible on several grounds 1) It is unclear if these are Turks from Bulgaria or Pomaks 2) The ethnic nature of the Pomaks is disputed as these may profess different ethnicities including the Pomak ethnicity 3) Pomak language per se is disputed; is it a language or is a Bulgaro-Macedonia-Slavic dialect 4) this article should not be about Pomaks or Bulgarian Turks in Turkey, it should concentrate on ethnic Bulgarian community in Turkey, which is, in all aspects clearly from the Bulgarian cultural and religious domain. Hittit (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

@Todor: See my reply above.

@Hittit: I'm afraid that your arguments (apart from being original research) are not convincing at all. Many Pomaks fled Bulgaria, especially during the 1877-1878 war and the Balkan war and many settled in Eastern Thrace (or other western provinces). So in a sense they are refugees as well. Again, nothing about Turks from Bulgaria. And of course the population figures of minorities are disputed in countries without censuses, so it's not surprising that there would significant differences between various estimates and of course must be mentioned.

As for your arguments that the figures are not admissible (which isn't the subject of this discussion at all, anyway):

1. See above for a detailed explanation.

2. That is true, but many identify as Bulgarians and are usually described as descendants of Christian Bulgarians, so they need to be mentioned in the article.

3. Practically all sources describe their language as a dialect of Bulgarian. The only possible exception would be the Torbeshi from the Republic of Macedonia. But they're not mentioned here, so that point is irrelevant.

4. The article is not about the Bulgarian Turks. The Pomaks clearly need to be included in the article for reasons I explained above.

Also, read sources carefully before making claims about them again. The source for the Ethnologue figure is clearly mentioned to be "Johnstone and Mandryk 2001". Kostja (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with Kostja, first the Pomak language doesn't exist, the used source and usually the sources claim Pomak dialect of the Bulgarian, the Torbeshi are not included and so there is no arguing for Bulgarian-Macedonian dialect. About the Bulgarian Turks whether you are showing how many citizens of Turkey were born in Bulgaria here Ethnologue clearly says the "usage of the language" by these 300,000 in the country is by "Muslim Pomaks" and not stating other group [3]. Pomaks are usually considered as descedents of Bulgarians, that some Turkish authors claim ridicilous origins of the Pomaks doesn't make them disputive. Outside the discussion here a video for the Pomaks in Turkey, in their speech you can see the Pomak dialect is clear Bulgarian [4]. Pensionero (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Kostja a quick note to your comment: "Many Pomaks fled Bulgaria, especially during the 1877-1878 war and the Balkan war and many settled in Eastern Thrace"; please note that it has been a 100 years since the Balkan Wars, I find it hardly believable that there are still 462,767 Bulgarian born people living in Turkey and are still alive since 1913. I see no point discussing Pomaks in this section and if this is the case then Pensionero should refrain from removing sourced text on the Pomak language and speculative ethnic background. I would rather have this discussion in the Pomaks article. Hittit (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Here you sources saying the Pomak language doesn't exist as iit is Bulgarian [5] [6] [7] The list of sources goes on Pensionero (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is open on the Pomaks talk page, take it there. Hittit (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

It has almoust been one year since the above discussion and still this article stands on mostly Pomaks in Turkey. The term Pomak is used on equal basis in the opening section of the article as the term Bulgarian. Reference of Pomaks in Turkey needs to be removed and concentrated on Bulgarians in Turkey. There is already a Wikipedia article on Pomaks with reference of Pomaks in Turkey. It is also interesting to note why did the Pomaks flee Bulgaria, same as the Turks fleeing Bulgaria to escape persecution and forced Bulgarisation.Hittit (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Pomaks vs Bulgarians

I have been asked to discuss on a matter concerning ethnicity by an user with no account who claims there is a consensus for something, as it is an IP it cannot be known who is he or whether he has discussed this subject himself.

1. Bulgarians are people that live in Bulgaria, in the neighbouring countries, and in the diaspora. They are Slavic people and are counted in censa as Bulgarian because they declare themselves Bulgarian. Some people local to both Macedonia and Serbia declare themselves Bulgarian whilst others similar may choose Macedonian or Serbian. Likewise some Slavic people from Bulgaria choose to identify as Macedonian.

2. Pomaks are Slavic Muslims that are part of their wider Slavic population and they are indigenous to Bulgaria, Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, Albania and Kosovo/Serbia if not more places. They too are counted as Pomaks no matter where they are from because they declare themselves Pomaks.

3. If one Slavic Muslim living in a village with 99 other Pomaks in Macedonia chooses to call himself Macedonian, and if this is the entire population of the village, then the demographic structure will be 99% Pomak and 1% Macedonian on all publications. Pomak is the name of an ethnicity equal to Macedonian, equal to Bulgarian, and not a subcategory of anybody. Likewise if a Slavic Muslim in Turkey chose to identify as Bulgarian, then he cannot be a Pomak, it is one or the other, just like Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks.

Therefore, if an indigenous person to Turkey speaks his regional Slavic and identifies as Pomak, he can only be as Bulgarian as the Pomaks in Kosovo. If anybody assumed that a Pomak in Macedonia is Bulgarian, then he does so on the pretext that he assumes all Macedonians themselves to be Bulgarian. It may indeed be the case that one century ago many people did identify as Bulgarian in present-day Macedonia but many of their family and neighbours also identified as Serb - there is nothing concrete about identity. Today the Slavic majority of Macedonia calls itself Macedonian and only a small percentage of the indigenous people calls themselves Bulgarian or Serb.

The idea that Bulgarian is some kind of pan-ethnic term that comes between Slavic and another set of subgroups including Pomak is one that may be common with people, but is not accepted, and not sourced. Therefore I ask that anonymous editors please discontinue with this endeavour to lay claim to the Pomak population of this planet. --OJ (TALK)

The academic consensus is that Pomaks descend from Bulgarians. There are claimed to be 6 million Albanians in Turkey of whom only 500,000 have Albanian identity. The same issue is interpreted differently than your point of view at Turkish people, for example Northern African populations such as Tunisians are described to be composed of 25% Turks. This includes partial origin and less than 1% of Tunisia population speaks Turkish. The figure of 300,000- 600,000 Pomaks excludes partial origin and all are Bulgarian speakers. So I think it would be fair if somebody find a higher figure. I disagree with the removal of the number of people of Bulgarian descent who do not have Bulgarian identity(Pomaks as agreed by academics), unless the same change is made at the other Balkan articles, Turks in somewhere and Albanians in somewhere, etc....-09:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.62.201.109 (talk)

Well I may have been mistaken if I thought Pomak was being used as a term of ethnicity. If it isn't then it is fine to refer to Pomaks as something else ethnically. However, regardless of a person's origin, if he wants to call himself Turkish, adopt a Turkish name, speak Turkish, raise his children as Turks then it is completely irrelevant that his own parents may have been Albanian. The reason is because life travels forward and not backward. There were many nations living in south-eastern Europe such as Avars and Thracians but today, nobody identifies as either of these terms. That doesn't mean they died out, it just means that many of today's Bulgarians, Romanians, Macedonians and Serbs will have them among their ancestors. Then we have Muslims by nationality, Macedonians in the Slavic sense and Montenegrins, none of whom can claim that their distant ancestors used the same demonym (except when Macedonians deny being Slavic and lay claim to Ancient Macedonian descent). So what does it mean to be of Bulgarian descent? Was it not the case that you once had two distinct nations, Slavs and Bulgars, living within a vast region who would later merge? If so then nobody can confidently state, "I am from Bulgaria but I am 100% Slavic" while another says "I'm also from Bulgaria but completely of Bulgar descent". National identity is like fluid and the only thing that defines ethnicity is one's choice. So if the parents of the Turkified Albanian were said to be Albanian, that only means they identified as Albanians - their own histories may tell a different story, such as their parents having been from some of the minorities of Albania. What you need to realise is that there is never a 100% correlation with language, religion and other typical features among nations: the Macedonian census reports a greater number of ethnic Albanians that the number to speak the language, with fewer Turks than the number to speak Turkish. To go to some villages and small towns in Bulgaria, the look of the place spells "typically Bulgarian" as is the language spoken by locals who in turn all have Bulgarian names. Yet to look at the 90% plus majority you'd also realise they are dark-skinned which would prompt a person driving by to say, "they are all Roma in that place!". Not according to the census, so when the statistics state that Bulgarians are 96% of a certain municipality, then that is because those "Roma" have been recorded as Bulgarian. It is not my job to tell another person what he is based on "conventional traits".

If Pomaks in Turkey are Slavic, naturally they will speak what is most local to them and that would be classed as Bulgarian for proximity reasons. It would be wrong to state that they are Bulgarians just because their ancestors declared Bulgarian if today the Pomaks choose not to, because as I have pointed out, ALL ethnicities are badges of identity, not actual sources of some supposed "common and exclusive origin". All I am interested in is how do the Pomaks identify? I realise that "Pomak" is more a communal name than a claimed ethic group. They can speak what they like, I have no concern about any strong cultural link to Bulgaria, all we need to know is whether they declare themselves Bulgarian. If so, they can be as dark as the Roma, it won't matter - but if they are calling themselves Turkish, then all we can say is that they are Slavic; as for "being of Bulgarian descent", we would need to know here that their ancestors did call themselves Bulgarian. Take away these properties and there is no Bulgarian link to Turkish Pomaks. So what is the situation? How do the Pomaks declare themselves? --OJ (TALK) 10:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Pomak is sometime regional sometime ethnic definition as Bosnian, person can call itself whatever wanting. Magyars call themselves after a tribe like Bulgarians call themselves after Bulgars, Finno Turkic tribes, French call themselves after Franks, a Germanic tribe, Russians call themselves after Rus' people, a Viking tribe. Even though some of them do not carry any DNA of the tribes who named their nation - Hungarians have less than 1% N haplogroup for example. Pomaks declare themselves Pomaks in Turkey not Bulgarians. I disagree with the removal of the Pomaks here as long as 6 million of so called Albanians without such identity are said to be in Turkey in the articles and millions of Northern Africans with probable far Turkish descent are said to be Turks. Propose to remove all these at WP:Dispute Resolution and I will support you. Turkey does not really ask for an ethnic group at census so everything is a guess. The latest census to do so was the 1965 census which recorded nearly the same figure of speakers of Pomak language and Albanian language, see Demographics of Turkey, so this would mean that we should state here that there are as many Pomaks as Albanians in Turkey who are said to be 6 million. Although I am sure that the 6 million figure is erroneous what you removed in this article gets the article so far from this number at Albanians, while the Pomak descent may be actually numerically more than the Albanians in Turkey. As for Turkified Albanian and Pomak, according to the figures Bulgarian is spoken by more people as a mother tongue in Turkey than Albanian is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.62.201.129 (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to change, you should make a global change in my opinion. One fifth of UK's population is considered Irish people due to an unverified newspapers' claim that so many people are of Irish descent, see the infobox in the article by yourself. I understand your claim, it is correct from a point of view but here is not the best place to discuss this, better post it somewhere, where it can affect all articles.149.62.200.144 (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

All right, I've looked into each of your examples and my conclusion is there is no comparison between them and what we are discussing here. I don't mean to sound personal but I do wish you had an account so we could keep better track of things. My own IP jumps by the minute or so it feels. I intend to seek further assistance here and I explain why. Albanians in Turkey and the process of assimilation are one thing, this is not the same as a nation claiming that people who refer to themselves by another established ethnic group are truthfully their people. This is no different to Macedonians claiming that the Gorani of Kosovo are Macedonians in Kosovo simply because a) Gorani are also indigenous to Macedonia and b ) the Gorani, mainly in the south of the neighbouring Dragaš municipality have chosen the Macedonian language as their standard. The Gora people identify as Gorani in Albania, and also in Macedonia. As such, if Macedonia's borders expanded to cover this whole area, they would still all be Gora just as if Bulgaria came to control the whole of Thrace (European Turkey and north-eastern Greece) then those people would still be Pomaks. You confirmed this when you stated that they declare Pomak as their ethnicity. As for the suggestion that they are descended from Bulgarians, that is just nonsensical. Humans are humans and cannot be descended from another contemporary race, only a historical race. It may be so that the Pomaks of Turkey and the Bulgarians have a common line of ancestry, but that pedigree is one shared by all Slavic nations regardless of genetics (nobody claims purity). So I have decided I will go down the route of dispute resolution but as you can see by my sparse edits these days, time doesn't permit. Regards. --OJ (TALK) 06:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I have already previously suggested the deletion of this article as it has severe issues, main being confusing Pomak Muslims in Turkey with the Bulgarian mainly patriarchate community in Istanbul. In fact many Pomak Muslims have been either expelled from their homes in the Rhodopes or have escaped Bulgarian persecution during the periods after the Russo-Turkish War. Mixing these two communities in one article as Bulgarians in Turkey is far from NPOV Hittit (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Outright deletion may not be altogether the best thing if indeed there are persons identifying as Bulgarian living in Turkey but the article needs to be purely about them and that in turn would mean major chunks removed from it. I intend (when I get some more time) to request dispute resolution and I hope you feel inclined to take part in the talks. --OJ (TALK)

The article needs work, as in its current state does not mirror the topic. Pomaks have their own section in Wikipedia where their part can be allocated. Hittit (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I transferred a lot of it some time back. But for this article I have been constantly reverted by an IP and I got to the edit-warring point of WP:3RR within a 24-hour period which is why I am not going to restore my revision even one week on - so I cannot be accused of gaming the system. There again, perhaps what you have stated could count as a WP:THIRDOPINION and that in itself is the first step toward a solution. --OJ (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

This looks as good as consensus as any and I see nothing from the IP who constantly reverted and somehow had the cheek to invite this conversation. If people declaring "Pomak" are considered Bulgarian then it should either be applied to all Pomaks including those as far away as Kosovo otherwise we undermine the concept behind Pomak national identity, that is heavily OR. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bulgarians in Turkey. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041217064611/http://www.aba.government.bg:80/bg/Bd/Archive/092002/istanbul.htm to http://www.aba.government.bg/bg/Bd/Archive/092002/istanbul.htm

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bulgarians in Turkey. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/h.php?news=trial-sheds-light-on-shades-of-turkey-2008-06-10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120423082118/http://www.batitrakya.org/makaleler/doc_download/18-the-muslim-minority-of-greek-thrace.html to http://www.batitrakya.org/makaleler/doc_download/18-the-muslim-minority-of-greek-thrace.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.azinlikca.net/pdfs/thesis/The_uncertainty_of_Pomakness_in_the_urban_Greek_Rhodoppe.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928220447/http://www.segabg.com/online/article.asp?issueid=2761&sectionId=4&id=0000901 to http://www.segabg.com/online/article.asp?issueid=2761&sectionId=4&id=0000901
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bnr.bg/RadioBulgaria/Emission_Bulgarian/News/1809-38.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707070445/http://www.8sutun.com/haberdetay.asp?tarih=05.01.2010&Newsid=65716&Categoryid=7 to http://www.8sutun.com/haberdetay.asp?tarih=05.01.2010&Newsid=65716&Categoryid=7
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090218215849/http://www.mfa.bg:80/ankara/ to http://www.mfa.bg/ankara/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327231044/http://www.pomaknet.org:80/ to http://pomaknet.org/

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)