Talk:Pomaks

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: History

message: 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: 
#  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: 
::#if it was volunteer or forced or both
::#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.
#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: 
::# If it was Pomak, Turkish or both
::# 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.
# 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: 
::# If the Pomaks fought the Bulgarians or the Ottomans or both
::# 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.
# 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: 
::# If it was Pomak, Turkish or both
::# 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.
# 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: 
::# If they turned only to Greece and France or they turned to other countries also
::# 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Why do you delete the History? Is it Vandalism or what?

message: 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)
thread_title:  The so called Pomak flag 

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

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

message: I made the following edit to the lead , on the grounds that to say that they are "usually" considered Bulgarians is WP:UNDUE andwording. This is sourced to a single source, hence the claim that this is "usually" the case is unsubstantiated. Second, "some authors" claim that their origins are unknown is again weasel wording. Someone could just as easily written that their origins are "usually" unknown and that "some authors" consider them Bulgarian converts to Islam. Since their precise origins are unknown and there are many hypotheses, the most logical thing is to say: "Their precise origins are unknown. They are sometimes considered Bulgarians who converted to Islam while alternative hypotheses on their origins are also known." To me, that is the clearest, most logical and NPOV way to proceed. Also, the removal of the Greek and Turkish name is silly and jingoistic, while being a disservice to our readers. Athenean (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with you. --Chech Explorer (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Most scholars (in Bulgaria) is not all scholars (worldwide). And if there is any disagreement (obviously there is) we have to be neutral. It is not neutral to impose your (or most of the Bulgarian scholars') opinion on Wikipedia. Why don't you consider the opinion of the Pomak authors? You can't impose identity on somebody else. Nor the Bulgarian scholars known for their faked facts and lies regarding the Pomaks which led to the Revival Process and to hundreds of deaths, oppression, exodus and intimidation. --Chech Explorer (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

text: (ec) Can you prove that "most scholars" consider them Bulgarians? And the addition of the Greek and Turkish names have nothing to do with how many "Greek self-identification", but because these names are useful and interesting to our readers. I also suggest you change your attitude("And stop with these ridicilous Greek nationalistic edits"), otherwise we are going to have problems. Athenean (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Since there is a large minority of Pomaks in Turkey and Greece, it is convenient to have the name in those languages too. The names of individuals do not matter. All information you revert is sourced. And you are violating the the three-revert rule. --Chech Explorer (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

text: (ec) A source attesting to the fact that their origins are unknown is provided []. 30,000 Pomaks live in Greece, don't you think how they are referred to in that country is interesting to our readers? That the Greek and Turkish names are provided does not in any way imply that Pomaks are Greeks and Turks. Athenean (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel-wording in the lede 

message: Could you post which changes are dramatical, I am cleaning generally not foreign authors. Besides reverting me you also placed some your unexplained edits such as "Bulgarains sometimes are regarded as descedents of Bulgarians who converted to Islam" Pensionero 16:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You had significantly altered the introduction section of this article, which has been worked on for years to find a concensus for its current state. Not to mention that you had removed sources and essential information. You should take it easy on the "cleaning" and try to discuss first before changing previous versions.Hittit (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authors 

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

message: It is tendentious to classify this article as "Part of a series on Bulgarians". It is a general Bulgarian State Policy not to classify its citizens as Pomaks this was again evident in the last census from this year where ethnicities as Pomak were removed from the census templates and all Pomaks are registered as ethnic Bulgarians (under Muslim). This being the case it seems quite impossible to have officially Pomaks in Bulgaria. Currently there is no reliable data on Pomaks in Bulgaria since it is forbidden to classify them as such in any statistics. Pomaks however are found in large numbers in many Balkans states and could be part of e.g., series on Turkey since it seems most Pomaks today live there. Hittit (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in that case there are no Pomaks in Bulgaria and you should focus on the article Bulgarian Muslims Hittit (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of a series on Bulgarians??? 

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

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

message: I have a strong feeling that we have seen this before. Ah, yes! Those same edits were done back in March by (surprise!) Pensionero. At that time they were challenged and corrected by several editors, and the edit war eventually came to an end. 
And now suddenly these edits are back.
Please bear in mind that this is an article not about Bulgarian Muslims, but about Pomaks in several countries (among them Bulgarian Muslims). It is therefore quite relevant and proper to present the name of the group in the countries where there is a significant number of Pomaks. It is also not relevant or proper to present this article as a part of a series on Bulgarians.
Please refrain from starting this "Bulgarification campaign" all over again. Regards! 79.160.40.10 (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Déjà vu 

message: "Pomaks are today usually considered descendants of native Bulgarians who converted to Islam during the Ottoman rule of the Balkans."
The better sentence is:
Pomaks, in 21 c., are usually considered descendants of native Christians who were converted to Islam during the Ottoman rule of the Balkans.  K. Ali 05:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not matter of neutrality, but of citing sources correctly. And as five sources say exactly that, there can be absolutely no question of trying to invent a "better" sentence which misrepresents the sources. Neutrality does not mean removing information which might be unpleasant for some users. Kostja (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Sources 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Kostja (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality or propaganda? 

message: American Chronicle, despite its dignified name, is basically a repository of various authors with dubious credentials and is little better than a blog. Now of course this can be examined by the reliable source board but I would that a quick browsing of the site will reveal its low reliability. Kostja (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. In our case, the articles:
Selian, Edouard (2009). The Pomaks: an Islamized People of Europe
Selian, Edouard (2010). The Immortal Spirit of the Goddess Nané
fit well with the text for the “Paulician and Bogomil origin”.
Questioning the credibility of the “American Chronicle” seems like an attempt to eliminate the above articles. You should attempt to disprove the content of the articles rather than try to slander the source of the articles. Simba22 (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliability is one thing, relevance is another. Even if reliable, there is no way that Selian 2010 can be relevant. Selian 2009 maybe, but 2010 not. If any text mentioning the Pomaks more or less by-the-way should be given room, we could fill the whole Wikipedia. The Further reading section is already long enough, and none of Selians articles could ever defend a place in External links. No way! --79.160.40.10 (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Chronicle 

message: I propose that this page be edited to reflect the fact that Macedonian Muslims and Gorani are not considered "Pomaks" in a modern context. It is misleading to suggest that these people are Pomaks, given that the word Pomak is generally used to describe Bulgarian-speaking Muslims living in Greece/Bulgaria/Turkey, and not Macedonian-speaking Muslims living in Macedonia/Albania. If however, it is decided that it is necessary for these sections to remain, then the Infobox and the lead needs to be changed in order to reflect these facts. What are people ideas pertaining to this? Or should I be WP:BOLD? Lunch for Two (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are a few sources, however the vast majority place them outside of the Pomaks classification. Even in the source you gave ""Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia от Jeffrey Cole ABC-CLIO, 2011" the "Torbeshi" are mentioned as a seperate group and are only tentatively included as part of the Pomaks appelation. Doing a search for certain terms in Google Books is not evidence of good scholarship, and is neither convincing. What is apparent in all of the sources is that the Torbeshi/Gorani are almost always not treated as Pomaks. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

message: I suppose that the Bulgarian fellows try to push the idea that all Slavic Muslims are Pomaks. In that case, the Bosniaks are Pomaks right? In reality, Pomaks are only in Bulgaria and Greece, in Macedonia and Albania they are called Torbes, in Kosovo Gorani and they are not related. Separate the facts please.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Macedonian Muslims, or Torbeš, are occasionally also referred to as Pomaks, especially in historical context. That is virtually what th article has to say on this. Plus, it is well-sourced. What seems to be troubling you? --Laveol T 16:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is worth investigating further linguistic branches of the Pomaks, but once you call them Slavic Muslims then one defines the Pomaks by race for which there is no tangible evidence.Hittit (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest user Jingiby informs himself a little better on the Bosniaks before dropping statements. Serbo-Croatian was coined as a term only in the mid-19th century, before this the language was collectively called Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian etc. depending on which ethnic group spoke it. Bosniaks have historically always referred to their language as Bosnian - the first dictionary in the language spoken by Bosniaks, Serbs, Croats was the Bosnian-Turkish dictionary written in the 16th century by Bosniak author Muhamed Hevaji Uskufi who already back then referred to his language as Bosnian, and ethnicity as Bosniak. What has happened in the last 60 years is not the birth of a Bosniak nation, as much as a re-birth of it. Moreover, contemporary Serb and Croat identities in Bosnia have their point of origin in the 19th century, prior to this all inhabitants of Bosnia were exclusively regarded Bosniaks (Bosnjaci). Similarly, the inhabitants of the pre-Ottoman Bosnian kingdom identified themselves as Bosnians (Bosnjani), while the names "Serbs" and "Croats" were not found.90.230.54.125 (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Pomaks and the other Muslim Slavs

message: Pomak is the Bulgarian Version of the Pomeranians (Slavic tribe).
So Pomaks are nothing else as Pomeranians (Slavic tribe), who settled in the Rhodope.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.171.50 (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pomeranians (Slavic tribe) 

message: I suppose it must be changed to Turkish(majority) and Bulgarian, Greek as minority since more than %60 of the Pomaks live in Turkey and speak Turkish.
*I am agree. Today, the Pomaks speak mostly Turkish. Also, they speak other languages: Bulgarian and Greek (the languages of their residency). The Pomak language is one Slavic language which is not standardized yet. Probably, typical representatives of this language are the dialects of Hanthi in Greece and the dialect of Smolyan in Bulgaria. K. Ali 05:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pomaks' language 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Pomaks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100830204222/http://www.librev.com:80/index.php/bg/component/content/article/article/23-discussion-bulgaria/457-2009-06-16-06-32-51 to http://www.librev.com/index.php/bg/component/content/article/article/23-discussion-bulgaria/457-2009-06-16-06-32-51
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article needs to clear whether this is an uniform ethnic group or a term used for Slavic Muslims. The article uses an infobox. This is dubious.--Zoupan 21:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Largely disputed, Pomaks however is generally accepted term for this specific ethno-cultural population living in Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey.Hittit (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is a unified version. It ranges from an ethnographic to ethnic group. Not to mention the varying self-identification of Pomaks themselves. --Laveol T 13:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are these Pomaks? Why is the infobox including non-Pomak (historically designated) ethnic groups?
*
*
*
Please clarify the scope of this article. Per this, proper identification, I am removing Gorani and Torbeshi from the introduction and infobox. reinforcing with these references.--Zoupan 14:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic group or term 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Pomaks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110713203811/http://www.librev.com/index.php/bg/component/content/article/article/23-discussion-bulgaria/460-2009-06-16-06-32-27 to http://www.librev.com/index.php/bg/component/content/article/article/23-discussion-bulgaria/460-2009-06-16-06-32-27
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The problem is here. A mysterious troll reverts my edits :-D Manaviko (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In both of the examples you have given in your edit summaries here and here, you have shown that the Bulgarian name can be transcribed "Pomaci" in Turkish, but since this is English Wikipedia, that is of no interest here. As you can see in the English version of the same website here, the name is rendered as "Pomatsi". This is actually similar to the situation of transliteration from Greece, where you correctly changed the transcription from "Pomaki" (which would be correct in many languages, but not in English) to "Pomakoi" (which is the correct version in English). --T*U (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help to transliterate 

message: This kind of attitudes show us one more time that Pomakish people have no right to be represented as Pomakish people, a population by their own, instead of being shown as only a small group, this must be why their proper name cant' find a place to put, but only in other languages. I condemn it Manaviko (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The multiple names are there because sizable communicates of varying size of the Pomaks are found apart from Bulgaria, in Turkey and Greece too. Overall the majority of Pomaks in all these countries are moving toward assimilating and self identifying as Turks. In the Bulgarian census their numbers have gone down by a big ammount. In Greece the Pomak community sees itself as one with the Turkish community and only a small number see themselves as fully separate. While in Turkey, Pomaks whose heritage is indigenous to Turkish Thrace are still undergoing language shift to varying degree while those that have settled on the Turkish mainland (Anatolia) the assimilation process has sped up much more and they see themselves as Turks. I placed a link to Friedman's articles about ethnicity and its realignment due to religion in the above thread. There are many cases where this has happened within the region. For example Orthodox Albanian  speakers (Arvanites first, now the majority of Orthodox Albanian speakers from Albania transitioning to Greek identity and language due to many having taken on Greek citizenship and having migrated to Greece in the past 2 decades). Same with Muslim Greek speakers etc. Anyway the word Pomak is the choice of much scholarship within the English speaking world as it is neutral. Due check out the article, it will in part answer some of your concerns.Resnjari (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pomaci 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Pomaks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225223906/http://www.ethnologue.com:80/14/show_language.asp?code=BLG to http://www.ethnologue.com/14/show_language.asp?code=BLG
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150714090323/http://www.minorityrights.org:80/1533/greece/turks-and-pomaks.html to http://www.minorityrights.org/1533/greece/turks-and-pomaks.html
*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  tag to http://www.azinlikca.net/pdfs/thesis/The_uncertainty_of_Pomakness_in_the_urban_Greek_Rhodoppe.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.azinlikca.net/pdfs/thesis/The_uncertainty_of_Pomakness_in_the_urban_Greek_Rhodoppe.pdf
*Added  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/20100830204222/http://www.librev.com:80/index.php/bg/component/content/article/article/23-discussion-bulgaria/457-2009-06-16-06-32-51 to http://www.librev.com/index.php/bg/component/content/article/article/23-discussion-bulgaria/457-2009-06-16-06-32-51
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713203811/http://www.librev.com/index.php/bg/component/content/article/article/23-discussion-bulgaria/460-2009-06-16-06-32-27 to http://www.librev.com/index.php/bg/component/content/article/article/23-discussion-bulgaria/460-2009-06-16-06-32-27
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: : Please explain the reason for not following WP:BULGARIANNAMES. Also please explain how Arab script is relevant here. Also please read WP:BRD. When your bold edit was reverted, the next step should not be edit war, but discussion in the talk page. --T*U (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly! Jingiby (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 15 September 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Pomaks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150714090323/http://www.minorityrights.org/1533/greece/turks-and-pomaks.html to http://www.minorityrights.org/1533/greece/turks-and-pomaks.html
*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  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/20160303192606/http://www.iea.pmf.ukim.edu.mk/EAZ/EAZ_03/EAZ_2004_PDF/EAZ_2003_Iskrenov_Ang.pdf to http://www.iea.pmf.ukim.edu.mk/EAZ/EAZ_03/EAZ_2004_PDF/EAZ_2003_Iskrenov_Ang.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.azinlikca.net/pdfs/thesis/The_uncertainty_of_Pomakness_in_the_urban_Greek_Rhodoppe.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.librev.com/index.php/bg/component/content/article/article/23-discussion-bulgaria/457-2009-06-16-06-32-51
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.librev.com/index.php/bg/component/content/article/article/23-discussion-bulgaria/460-2009-06-16-06-32-27
*Added  tag to http://www.azinlikca.net/pdfs/thesis/The_uncertainty_of_Pomakness_in_the_urban_Greek_Rhodoppe.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion