Jump to content

Talk:Bosniaks/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Definition f Bosniaks

The definition of "that Bosniaks are the Slavic Muslims on the territory of the former Yugoslavia who identify themselves with Bosnia and Herzegovina as their ethnic state and are part of such a common nation" is no longer correct. It was created as a result of wandering in finding its identity after decades of slavery during which Bosniaks were not recognized as a nation. Bosniaks are not only Muslims but people from several religions. They are the indigenous population of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro, while in other regions they are settlers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.180.140.217 (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

There are numerous problems with this infobox: 1) Elizabeth of Bosnia was ethnic Croat 2) Sokollu Mehmed Pasha was ethnically Serb and is included in the Serbs infobox 2) Why is a fascist military commander (Muhamed Hadžiefendić) placed in the infobox? 4) The pics of Enver Čolaković, Meša Selimović, Osman Karabegović and Hasan Brkić are non-free and need to be removed. 23 editor (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


Elizabeth of Bosnia, ethnic Croat? Sources? Any? There were non Croats in Bosnia before the 19th century. Also, the Polish emperal title of Elizabeth of Bosnia was Elżbieta Bośniaczka (Bošnjačka) and not "Chorwaczka". Source: Jerzy Besala (2009). Najsłynniejsze Miłości Królów Polskich. Bellona. p. 21. (http://books.google.se/books?id=jVxCFDj_XIIC&pg=PA21&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false), also Polish wikipedia: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/El%C5%BCbieta_Bo%C5%9Bniaczka

Since you focus only on Elizabeth, here: Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian Victim Centered Propaganda and the War in Yugoslavia by David Bruce Macdonald, p. 230. Elizabeth was born to Stephen II and his Polish wife. Stephen II's ethnicity, according to Macdonald, is "ambiguous by 19th and 20th-century standards, as he was born Orthodox but converted to Catholicism in 1340...he was a descendant of the Serbian Nemanjić dynasty, leading to claims that he was both a historic Serbian and Croatian leader." So, from what I gather, Elizabeth was born to a Polish mother and Croat/Serb father. You were saying? 23 editor (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


No, Stephen II was born as Bosnian Christian. In the cahpter from 1332 where he guaranteed future friendships between the Banate of Bosnia and the Republic of Dubrovnik he refeers to his people as Bosniaks (Bošnjani)

"[...]Ako ima Dubrovcanin koju pravdu na BOSNJANINU - da ga pozove pred gospodina bana ili pred njegova vladaoca - roka da mu ne bude odgovoriti. Ako BOSNJANIN zapsi da nije duzan - da mu na rece priseci samosestu, koje ljubo postavi banj rod. A kto Dubrovcanin ubije ali posjece u Bosni ili BOSNJANIN Dubrovcanina - ta pravda da je pred gospodinom banom, a osud da grede banu na njih.[...]"

Yes, Stephen II had also German roots, but that doesen't make him German, he is still refeering to his people as Bosnjani, and that was probably even his self-identification. In Hungarian he was known as II. István bosnyák bán (https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotromani%C4%87_Istv%C3%A1n_bosny%C3%A1k_b%C3%A1n). His daughter, Elizabeth, was as the queen consort of Poland known as Elżbieta Bośniaczka and not as Elżbieta Chorwaczka or Elżbieta Serbowczka. Also, if you were born in the city of Srebrenik in 14th century you could only be Bosnjanin, especially in Srebrenik (the heart of Bosnia and Bosnian kingdom) because that was the only ethnonym in the medieval Bosnia, beside some indigeneous Vlachs and Serbs in southeastern parts and Ragusian and Saxon immigrants in central and eastern Bosnia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 09:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

"Bošnjanin" would be a national affilation (i.e. the equivalent of today's Bosnian, which covers Bosniaks, Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats). Did he ever specifically refer to himself as a "Bosniak"? 23 editor (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Medieval Bosnia was neither Bosniak, Serb or Croat but simply Bosnian (which is however terminologically the closest to Bosniak). Selectively citing and interpreting sources (which you are usually very proficient at 23 editor) does not prove anything. Being Catholic or Orthodox in medieval Bosnia did not equal being Serb or Croat as such affiliations only date from the 19th century and forward. Moreover, royal families have traditionally always been of mixed ethnicity, does this mean that the arguably greatest Serb Dusan the Mighty was actually a Bulgarian because his mother was Theodora Smilets of Bulgaria? I'm not sure that this is the place to apply such nationalist logics. Keep it on a low please. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 17:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting that "Medieval Bosnia was neither Bosniak, Serb or Croat". Now we agree that Elizabeth, nor her family, could not have been Bosniak. If you wish, you can add her to the article Bosnians, and remove her from Bosniaks. Problem solved. 23 editor (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes of course, Bosnjani is the older term of Bosniaks, such as Xъrvatъ are the older term of Croats (In Old Croatian) and Sьrbji older term describing nowdays Serbs (in Old Serbian). Dmitar Zvonimir, the king of Croatia between 1064–1075 didn't probalby call him self "Hrvat" but Chrobat (as mentioned by the Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus in DAI), but that doesen't make him less Croat, because of that. That is only an older term of Croats. Elizabeth of Bosnia was and are still called by Poles Elżbieta Bośniaczka so I don't really know what the problem is. Of course that medieval Bosnia was more Bosniak because the medeival Bosnians called them selfs Bosnjani and later Bosniaks, regardless of religion, also during the whole time under the Ottoman occupation until the 19th Century. The whole time between the fall of the Bosnian Kingdom and the Austro-Hungarian occupation everyone in Bosnia called them selfs Bosnjaci and not Bosanci. The Muslim, Orthodox and Catholic population in Bosnia went together with a common Bosniak self-identification. Also, the ethnonym Bosniak is older then the Ottoman conquest. In 1440, Polish ruler Władysław Warneńczyk was crowned as king of Hungary and on that occasion he received the delegation of Bosnian king Tvrtko II in Buda. Croatian historian Vjekoslav Klaic (Poviest Bosne, 1882) wrote these lines about the event: “King Stephen Tvrtko II and despot George Brankovic hoped that better times will come and were delighted that the Hungarian crown was taken by a Slavic ruler so they sent their delegates to Buda to greet the new king and ask him for help. The biographer of king Vladislav Philipp Calimah wrote this about the Bosnian delegation: “The Bosnian king also sent a delegation composed of great husbands. With stories about the origins of their tribe, they stressed that the Bosniaks had the same ancestors as Poles (Bosnjakom su isti pradjedovi bili kao i Poljakom) and that they have the same speaking language." This event is also described in one of the 19.-th century (1844) Polish ‘books’ called “Dzieje Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej” by Jędrzej Moraczewski and Bosnian historian Muhamed Hadzijahic, porijeklo bosanskih muslimana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 02:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Bosniaks had the same ancestors as Poles. Yes, and Nicolaus Copernicus was a Bosniak as well! Sarcasm aside, the term Bošnjani is "[of] a geographical rather than ethnic or religious sense - they (Bošnjani) served the Bosnian state and the Bosnian king." (see: Sarajevo: A Bosnian Kaleidoscope by Fran Markowitz, University of Illinois Press; p. 165) Again, no mention of Bosniaks in the 14th century. This article is explicitly titled Bosniaks, not "Bošnjak-jani-anci" or something of the sort. 23 editor (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

There were no mention of Swedes neither in 14th century - only Svear - but Svear is nothing else then the older term of the Swedes. According to your logic Magnus IV of Sweden wasn't a Swede, and Dmitar Zvonimir was not a Croat (but Chrobat), and Jovan Vladimir was not a Serb (but Sьrbji).

Marko Marulic: Molitva Suprotiva Turkom (prayer against the Turks), poem written in 1493: "..Inako t' ne ostaju gradi tere mista, kano opušćaju, plinujuć sva lita. Boj su bili š njimi Harvati, Bošnjaci, Grci ter Latini, Srblji ter Poljaci..."

According to you those Harvati and Srblji mentioned in Marulic's poem, can absolutely not be refereed to the Hrvati (Croats) and Srbi (Serbs). Please. Also, as I said, about ten times; Elizbeth of Bosnia was as the queen consort of Poland called Elżbieta Bośniaczka (Bosniak) and not Elżbieta bośnieńska (Bosnian): http://books.google.se/books?id=jVxCFDj_XIIC&pg=PA21&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned. comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 04:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is a song in Polish language dedicated to Elizabeth's daughter Jadwiga of Poland; check out the pronunciation of Bośniaczka at 0:24: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhtvazjjdWg

All that's important is that if today's Bosniak people view those past figures as ancestors, legends and notable historics, and they are from Bosnia, then it shouldn't be limited to only post-15th century, Muslims Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is limited to the Christian population of Bosnia, also. But it is limited to them not as "Serbs" or "Croats" but as Bosnians. Boths Catholics and Orthodox population of Bosnia went under the Bosniak name until the 19th century - just like most of all Bosnian medieval nobles. Both Serbs and Croats have their medieval history, so why shouldn't Bosniaks have it, and they have right to have it. Croats have Dmitar Zvonimir, Serbs have Stefan Nemanja so why shouldn't Bosniaks have Tvrtko I when he was a Bošnjanin which is of the same derivation as Bosniak? Tvrtko didn't call him self a BosniAK, but Zvonimir didn't call him self HRvat eather (just like medieval inhabitants of Bosnia had some older variant of "Bosniak"), so what is the problem? So if medieval Bošnjani aren't Bosniaks so why should medieval Sorabi (or even Rascians) be Serbs, and why should svear be Swedes? But no one questions the Serbs the right to proclaim the medieval Sorabi with modern Serbs or svear to modern Swedes, so I don't see any reason for people to question the right of Bosniaks to proclaim medieval Bošnjani as Bosniaks - which they are. Also, if Tvrtko I, Catherine of Bosnia, Stephen Thomas, Jelena Gruba and all other Bosnian nobles lived during the 16th century they would all be BosnIAKS like all inhabitants in Bosnia at that time, and that is a fact! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 11:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually Norrskensstämmor, if you read closely I think Slovenski Volk supports your case in point.Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Problem in need of fixing

At the time of this message, the article contains this information:

Bosniaks are linguistically defined as a South Slavic people. Nonetheless, it has been proposed, based on genetic signatures, that their roots also date back to pre-Slavic inhabitants of the Dinaric region, effectively predating many modern European homogenous ethnic groups.

I believe this can be cleaned up to reflect the facts which are somewhat different to what is being presented. I am no expert on genetics and in all honestly it is a subject I prefer to keep well away from because it is unspeakably shady. There is one thing I must point out though: this article is about the people on this earth who identify as Bosniak/Muslim by nationality, both on the homeland and in the diaspora. As such, and roots in pre-Slavic populations probably refers to the population of Bosnia rather than Bosniaks per se. In the first place, one who is Muslim and living in the same municipality as Catholic Croats, Orthodox Serbs and Yugoslavs of any faith will be no different genetically to the members of the other South Slavic ethnicities. In the second place, Bosniaks are autochtonous to lands far beyond BiH, for instance the Slavic Muslim population of Macedonia refers to the Gorani community in the northwest and the Torbeši scattered throughout the country. Collectively these communities identify as Gorani, Pomaks, Torbeš, Macedonians (some choose this), Muslims and Bosniaks - some of those Bosniaks are Serbo-Croatian speakers and moved from areas where this is spoken - but others are drawn from the local set of Slavic Muslims but are subsequently no less Bosniak than those from Tuzla. Where there are Bosniaks, their genetic roots will be as all those non-Bosniak but Slavic around them. Would somebody like to clean up the passaage, or would anybody object to me doing so? Zavtek (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I basically agree with your position about genetic research and support its removal from the overview paragraph. There was similar attempt at Turkish people article to push indigenous POV based on the genetic research. Similar indigenous POV exists in nationalistic myths of all Balkans nations. I think that majority of editors at Turkish people concluded that genetic research should be presented within separate section or article without undue weight.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I also agree with above opinions, more there are genetic researcher who maintain the Y-DNA mutation that serves for a base of such indigenous caims arose in modern Poland and was brought into the Balkans 1500 years ago by the Slavs themselves. Jingiby (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both for the positive responses, you are both more knowledgeable in the field of Y-DNA etc than I am which is why I normally avoid the issue. Feel free to remove it, but if any editor wishes to replace it, I only ask that he/she refer to the people of Bosnia rather than the Bosniaks. Cheers. Zavtek (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done I moved assertion about genetics researches from overview section into section about genetic research.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Here here (after the fact :) ) Genetics tells tells us little apart from the fact that we all come from the same soup Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Language

Section on language indiscriminately mixes modern standard Bosnian (invented in the 1990s) and the pre-standard historical usages of Bosnian as a regional term. Stuff like Ban Kulin Charter is is definitely not claimed by Bosniaks exclusively. [[Bosnian language]] article is however very short so I propose we move it there, and/or organize it as a subsection "Historical usage" or something like that. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Clear as day, the Ban Kulin Charter is not exclusively Bosniak. Good catch. I think that is a great idea, Ivan, feel free to reassign the history of the term Bosnian to the main article. Or should I? It would be suitable background to the current section "Modern language and standardization". It would also be a nice feature to keep some of it here under the subsection ""Historical usage" or something.Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Inserted a historical usage subsection. Also, if you don't mind me saying, the proper word is "codified" and not "invented", in which case Serbian and Croatian were just as much "invented". Moreover, we're not here to engage in polemy whether Bosnian designated regional or ethnic affiliation, but the term was evidently used to denote the language of the people inhabiting Bosnia which has always been a distinct unit with its own identity and history. I expect you to not exercise Greater Croatia ideology (including among other downplaying Bosnia's distinctiveness) seeing how clearly you allege to distance yourself from all sorts of nationalism. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 00:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

About Zlatan Ibrahimović

Ibrahimovic's ethnic origin is Bosnian. Citizenship does not show his identity! There are many examples this issue, Roxelana, the wife of Suleiman the Magnificient is in the article of Ukrainians. Mesut Özil is German citizen but ethnically Turkish and he's located in Turkish people. Ali Khamenei the Suprame leader of Iran is in the Azerbaijani People because he is Azerbiajani origin..etc. Zlatan Ibrahimović's mother may be of Croatian origin but this does not prove that he was Croatian. A possible edit war, ou can blocked due to the scope of the ARBMAC! Maurice07 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, try to understand that someones "origin" is irrelevant in this case. You are not a Bosniak if you are not selfdeclared as one. Zlatan Ibrahimović father is a Bosniak, but Zlatan himself is ETHNICALLY selfdeclared as a Swede - as en ethnic Swede. Just like Džafer Kulenović (a Bosnian Muslim) and a Vice president of the Gouvernment of the Independent State of Croatia during the World war II, was declared as ethnic Croat. He is not a Bosniak, it doesen't matter if he was raised in a Bosnian Muslim family with probably Bosniak origins. IT DOESEN'T MATTER AT ALL! His origin is Bosniak, but he was selfdeclared as a Croat and because of that, he was a Croat. Same thing goes with the novelist and winner of the Nobel Prize in litterature, Ivo Andrić. Hi was born and raised in a Bosnian Croat Catholic family, but he was selfdeclared as a Serb, and because of that we can find him on the infobox in the article about the Serbs here on Wikipedia: Serbs. Zlatan is not a Bosniak because he is not declared as one, it doesen't matter if his father is a Bosniak. Your ethnicity dosen't have allways to depend on your origin. 100 000 of nowdays Bosnian Muslims or Bosniaks have Hungarian origin, but that doesen't make those 100 000 Hungarians.

"I feel like a Swede in 100%" - Zlatan Ibrahimović - http://justzlatan.com/news_show_zlatan-jag-kanner-mig-som-100-procent-svensk.html?id=11432236 He is declared as a Swede and nobody have any right to proclaim him as a Bosniak, because he isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 13:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Zlatan Ibrahimovic

Zlatan is not only born in Sweden, but a Catholic. http://www.dagen.se/nyheter/troende-zlatan-sjalvkritisk-over-maltorka/ It's a bit of opportunism to have him - why not Edin Dzeko, a Muslim, Bosnian-born Bosnia international? '''tAD''' (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see Dzeko is already there... '''tAD''' (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I changed Zlatan for Asmir Begovic. It's a possible WP:BLP to list him as a Bosniak, as such would need a statement, which others have sourced to show his Catholicism (as he is Swedish, this is likely to indicate he is more in touch with his Croat side than assimilating to his country of birth) and feeling of being Swedish. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it doesen't matter if he is Catholic, Muslim or something else. You can be a Catholic and Bosniak, and there is surely some Bosnian Catholics who are selfdeclared as ethnic Bosniaks. But this is irrelevant in Zlatan's case because he isn't a Bosniak at all. He is a Swede because he is ethnically declared as one, so he is not a Bosniak even if he now would be a Muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 11:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Titanic

I recently read about four Bosniak men from the Bosanska Krajina region who perished when the Titanic sank in 1912. Has anybody considered putting that info somewhere on this wiki or would I get reverted if I did?--Sabahudin9 (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Problems with notable people

Among the notable peoples in infobox we have several persons who are self declared as non-Bosniaks, such as Meša Selimović (ethnic Serb), Osman Đikić (ethnic Serb) and Danis Tanović (ethnic Bosnian). We really have to be factual in this issue, if we have Jukić and Knežević (self declared as Catholic Bosniaks), then we really have to replace Muslims which aren't declared as Bosniaks. Also the ethnic origin of Lala Mustafa Pasha and Ferhad Pasha Sokolović is an issue of a historical debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 22:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Most Bosniaks do not make a distinction between being ethnic Bosniaks and 'ethnic' Bosnians. Article reads:From the point of view of Bosniaks, bosanstvo (Bosnianhood) and bošnjaštvo (Bosniakhood) are closely and mutually connected, because Bosniaks connect their identity with Bosnia and Herzegovina.. Tanovic should remain. And Selimovic too, because he was born in a Bosniak Muslim family regardless of his subsequent politicized self-declaration as belonging to the "Serbian literature". His books clearly took place within a Bosniak cultural context. We've had this discussion on numerous occasions, you are being very difficult and uncomprehending. Ivo Andric is kept in the Croats infobox on much the same grounds. Reinsert Tanovic, and PLEASE remove the nut job Osmanagic. Are you even serious with him? The guy is a laughing stock around the world and clearly lacks touch with reality (read the article about him and his 'scholarly' "theories" on the Mayas and Atlantis). Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 00:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Okey then. But about Osmanagić, it doesen't matter if his scientific theories are retarded (which they in many cases are), he is still a well known person, and that is what the infobox gallery is all about - having a collection of famous people of Bosniak descent. Also, if we have Selimović listed here, then we can have Emir Kusturica - also born in a Bosniak "Muslim" family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 09:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay listen up. Adolf Hitler is an extremely well-known person but is not found in either the Germans or Austrians infobox. Same goes for another well-known person, Radovan Karadzic, in the Serbs infobox. Why? Because there is a difference between being famous and infamous. Osmanagic is if anything the latter. You should seriously question your ambitions to edit ethnic articles if you cannot appreciate these distinctions. No we cannot have Emir Kusturica because his self-declared affiliation with the Serbs has a wholly different (and undisputed) quality compared to that of Selimovic. Kusturica, who even went on to adopt an outspokenly anti-Bosniak stance, has not retained and nor does cherish any aspect of Bosniak culture. His repositioning was crowned with his name change to 'Nemanja'. Kusturica is beyond doubt an infamous person among Bosniaks, while Selimovic certainly is not. Once again, if you cannot sense these distinctions maybe you should find other topics to edit. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect. Kusturica is not infamous. On the contrary, he is Bosnian who is far more famous than any of other individuals from infobox. He was never anti-Bosnian. On the contrary, his works include Andrić Grad that he built in Bosnia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Huh? Seriously? Please note that this is the article on Bosniaks and not Bosnians. The man is anti-Bosniak and not anti-Bosnian. As far as "Bosnians" are concerned, such an ethnic group does not exist and Kusturica and his construction enterprises in the ethnically cleansed Višegrad in what is known as the "Serb republic" since 1992 is not an overarching feature of the Bosnians. In fact it is a highly subjective account of what Bosnia is. Someone who turns his back on his ethnic roots and joins the opposition during one of the most challenging periods in that ethnic groups history is destined to be infamous among his former compatriots. You can't be serious thinking otherwise. The man is a "traitor". But having him in the Bosnians infobox is fine, since neither Serbs, Bosniaks or Croats have monopoly on what it means being Bosnian. Also, Kusturica is hardly as famous as you might believe. His fame is merely being exaggerated by POV pushers who find an appeal in his switch to the Serb cause. The article on him is laughable portraying his "town-building" projects as prominent. Maybe in local Balkan tabloids, but nowhere else. Geez. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
You contradict yourself. You first say Bosniaks = Bosnians so Bosnians can be included. Now you insist that this is the article on Bosniaks and not Bosnians. Part of your comment is violation of WP:BLP and I politely ask you to remove it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not contradicting myself or anything. The fault is with your lack of understanding. Yes "Bosnian" and "Bosniak" are used interchangeably, from the viewpoint of Bosniaks themselves. Kusturica is however an individual who has clearly distanced himself from the Bosniak ethnic group in ways which can be deemed "treacherous" by any logical observer. For him, rather, "Serb" and "Bosnian" are used interchangeably. It is not meant to be a defamatory remark, but joining the opposition obviously carries "treachery" written on its forehead. There is really no discussion about it, or do you seriously think of Wang Jingwei as popular figure among the Chinese? I'm out. :) Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 00:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you are contradicting yourself. Now even more. If "the viewpoint of Bosniaks themselves" is irrelevant, why did you justify your position with " Kusturica is beyond doubt xxxxxxxxxxx person among Bosniaks". This is not Bosniakns viewpoint wikipedia. If Bosnian=Bosniak then it is wrong to exclude Kusturica (one of the most notable Bosnians) just because of Bosniakns viewpoint. Since you obviously refused my pledge to remove part of your comment that is violation of BLP policy and continued in similar manner (about "treachery" written on forehead) this will be my last comment in this discussion with you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure you're quite following. More often than not I receive the impression you are going against me just for the sake of it. You are an interesting editor, I'll give you that. I am not interested in smearing Kusturica (who you seem to cherish) since as an editor I strive to contribute under neutrality. But purely objectively speaking, Kusturica is a highly controversial person among the Bosniaks and has even attained an infamous status due to him siding with Serbs ethnically, politically and even religiously. His movie projects have often been labeled as part of the Serb propaganda machinery by the Bosniaks and Croats. There is actually a quite extensive controversy section in the article on him already. But fine include him if you like, just beware of the bizarreness that will result from doing so. If there is any issue with the infobox in my opinion, it is with Aida Cobadzic whose notability as well as significance can be seriously questioned. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 11:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Praxis Icosahedron: Relax dude. Regrettable that you did not understand the sarcasm in my last post. And please, you can not compare Adolf Hitler with Semir Osmanagić. If Adolf Hitler wasn't the most hated person in human history I should guarantee that he would be in the infobox in Germans article. And if we can list people who are declared as "Bosnians" in this article, then I would be happy to see more of medieval notabilities in here. We already have Elizabeth of Bosnia, and that is great, but what about the others? Maybe Stephen Thomas of Bosnia who in his charter dedicated to the brothers Dragišići from 1446 calls the people living in Bosnia as Bošnjani, or Stephen II of Bosnia who also in one charter, dedicated to Grgur Stipanić wrote, quotation: [...] A tomu su svidoci dobri Bošnjani. Tepčija Radosav i s braćom, Hlap i s braćom, Vuk Štitković vojvoda bosanski s braćom, knez Dabiša Beroević s braćom [..] And why not Tvrtko II of Bosnia which was the very first to make use of etnonym Bosniak in his Apparatu virisque insignis. I know that we had a talk about this before, and that is why I never used those people in the infobox gallery, but I still think that we should. If Croats and Serbs arrogate this notabilities as their own, yeah so what, that is their problem. Those people are Bošnjani and case closed, and the ethnonym Bosniak is of the same derivation. Saying that the history of Bosniak people begins with the arrival of the Ottomans is a rape and desecration of the entire signification of truthness, and are based on our neighbors' chauvinistic interpretations of our history. So my point is; wikipedia is surely the most widely read encyclopaedia on the internet, or perhaps even generally, and that is why we editors have to show to the world and ensure the fact that the Bosniak people is deeply rooted in European ethnography, and is not a result of the wet dreams of Muslim intellectuals who participted in Prvi Bošnjački Sabor in 1993, and nor is it a term that was constructed after the fall of the Bosnian kingdom in 1463. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 23:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow Praxis, what you said about Kusturica about his fame being exagerated is just not trouth. I live abroad and travel quite a lot, and I garantee you that ammong young/middle-aged people specially in Europe, he is extremelly well known. He even made a revival of an alternative cinema. Within people between 25-55 years in Western Europe, 10-15 years ago, there was even a trend of knowing about him and seing his movies. One thing is the fact that we in the Balkans ofren exagerate things, but that is really not the case with Kusturica. Now, regarding the places he has built, yes, they passed quite unoteced, but his name as filmmaker certainly didn´t. PS: I even get sad sometimes notecing that he is the main and often only reference to people in Western societies about our region, cause personally I would like to see more people making films and other art expressions in a more modern way than Kusturica. He basically portrays the gypsy and rural society, which is far from being representative of the way of life of Belgrade or Sarajevo... FkpCascais (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Well the Kusturica family is originally of Turkish Roma/Gypsy ancestry, so no wonder he feels connected to that environment. I have not recieved the impression of him being that famous in the West (he was mostly around the time of the Yugoslav wars due to the numerous contorversies). His relevance has stagnated after the wars. We have Danis Tanovic who has won the most exclusive award there is, the academy award (oscar), which Kusturica has not. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 13:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Religion

I request that under religion besides "Predominantly Sunni Islam", catholic, atheist and easter orthodox to be added. Because essentialy 88% of the Bosniak people are sunni islamic, the rest are other religions. On the 2013 population Census I declared myself as Bosniak atheist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.141.10 (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Where are the Bosniak Kings?

Why does this article restrain from including pictures of Bosnian Kings in the photo section.If you state that bosnjani is the medieval name for modern day Bosniaks (wich it ist) shouldnt you put the pictures of their Kings too.No insult to existing bosniak famous people but I think that Ban Kulin or King Tvrtko are historicaly more important then Edin Dzeko (again my apologys for the great soocer player) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorčin (talk • contribs) 23:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing picture

I uploaded this old picture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BosniakWoman.jpg of a family member the other day and I would now like to delete it but I'm still sort of new to this site and I'm not sure how --Sabahudin9 (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong pic

The girls dancing in kolo under tradition and customs are not Bosniak, but from the Bosnia country, look at the sources of the picture and the orginal pictures on the internet, it was uploaded by a user and labeled as Bosniak, and caption is stating kolo is only a Bosniak tradition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.104.44 (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No? The girl is dressed in Muslim Bosniak attire, unless you wanna amuse us and claim that Catholic and Orthodox females of Bosnia also had the habit of wearing a decorated Ottoman-style fez? These are not Bosnian Catholic and Orthodox folk costumes. And yeah, if you didn't know, Bosniaks are also Bosnians. The one doesn't exclude the other. Surprise? Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 17:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox historical figures

23, I'd rather see you remove the two characters than to call for citations in highly unconventional never-before-seen places. Before getting down to work, however, I'd suggest you to run your grounds by other potentially interested editors in order to avoid edit warring. Although not having any definite opinion myself, I personally see no problem with having these two (who also employed the name 'Bosnjak' for their identity) since the Bosniak people identifies with them and their rule. It is considered a part of their pre-Islamic history; not to mention the fact that all Bosniaks are not Muslim by religion.Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 18:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Or we could write something very briefly about Elizabeth and her connection with the Bosniak name (referenced primarily from Polish literature) in the text, maybe in the Ethnonym and definition or History section, to avoid similar situations, even if the topic has been discussed on the talk page previously. Or maybe we could create a separate section where the focus should be exclusively on the historical traces of the Bosniak ethnonym?

Safet and Selma

Serb nationalist User:FkpCascais reverted my edits twice and then accused me of edit warring. I had replaced the pictures of Lepa Brena and Dino Merlin with those of Safet Isovic and Selma Bajrami because I feel they better represent two separate generations of Bosniak music, whereas Brena and Dino are both Bosniak musicians of the 1980s and 1990s.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I most strongly object to this edit and specially because of the cited reasons. Lepa Brena and Dino Merlin are probably the best worldwide known Bosnian musicians, and removing Lepa Brena because she is normal and didn't engaged in Bosniak nationalism goes completely against the policies of neutrality and objectivity. Who Bosnian should praise and who they should be ashamed of is such a shamefull nationalistic approach which we simply should not tolerate here on en.wiki. I adore Safet Isović, [1] but saying he is more well-knwn than Brena or Dino is a joke.
PS: Serb nationalist FkpCascais? LOL? FkpCascais (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Most of what you said had nothing to do with what I was talking about and was completely ridiculous. I'll be here patiently waiting for someone "normal" to talk this out with. Please don't reply.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Your reasons for their removal are wrong. You are removing 2 far more better known people just because you don't like them and they don't fit into your nationalistic view of who are "good" or "bad" Bosniaks. Shame on you.
And you expressed your reasons clearly on your first revert, now you want to cover them up with some blabla on musicians from different decades and so on. Lepa Brena and Dino Merlin also started their careers long time ago, and they are still very popular, so even your cover-up arguments are laughable. FkpCascais (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Nije tebi lahko :) --Sabahudin9 (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Lepa Brena didn't engaged in Balkanic nationalism in the 1990s and kept living in Belgrade, Serbia, so she got to be accused of being a traidor by some Bosniaks (the nationalist ones) so that is why you think she doesn't "deserve" to be on the list despite being the best known popular singer in entire former Yugoslavia. :) FkpCascais (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't really follow Brena so I don't know much about her nor do I care but I do know that not Bosniaks and Croats don't like her because she was with the Serbs (who were massacring Bosniaks and Croats, proven by the Hague and can't be denied or twisted in any way). There is video proof of her with the JNA during one of their raids in Brcko. You're not a nationalist if you don't like someone who was rubbing shoulders with the people that raped and killed your family members. --Sabahudin9 (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Brena seems not to share such a simplistic view on the events as you do (good guys vs bad guys), but that doesn't make her less Bosniak. My family members also suffered on hands of Croats and Bosniaks and I dont go around spreading my view as the only one valid. Oh Selma doesn't celebrate her child birthday in honour of Srebrenica, oh how patriotic, she deserves more that Brena lol I see your point. But unfortunately this article isn't about listing the Bosniak nationalists patriots call it whatever, but about Bosniaks on the overall and if a Bosniak likes Serbs that is no reason for excluding it (I know many Bosniaks who share that sympathy towards Serbs) FkpCascais (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, this isn't abut the Bosnian War and what people did during and after, but only about well known Bosniaks worldwide. The war is irrelevant here. FkpCascais (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the word "sympathy". You have somehow ripped this thread away from it's original topic. Safet/Selma will stay and Brena/Dino will be gone. It makes more sense. None of them are "world famous" as you have described them. Ask any American who Lepa Brena is... "Who?" will be the answer.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

An average American Joe is capable of saying that Albert Einstein is possibly an ice-hockey player lol... But on the overall Lepa Brena and Dino Merlin are far better known than Safet Isović and Selma Bajrami. FkpCascais (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

FkpCascais: According to who is Dino Merlin more popular then Safet Isovic? Safet isović is undoubtedly the icon of the musical scene in Bosnia and Herzegovina, just look at his concerts. Additionally, he is the most established and popular sevdalinka-singer, certainly throughout the former Yugoslavia. Also, sevdalinka is Bosniak national music, and the most prominent Bosniak sevdalinka-singer should therefore deserve a place into the infobox. Moreover, I think definitely that Lepa Brena should not be replaced, despite her political point of views during the wars in 1990's. That topic simply does not belong here and is totally irrelevant.

We should add Safet, or either Beba Selimovic, Zehra Deovic or Silvana Armenulic to represent sevdalinka. Selma Bajrami has been famous since '98. She could represent the modern generation of Bosniak music.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I am just against removing Lepa Brena as she indeed was popular like no one or only few, in the entire region menaged to be. FkpCascais (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Gordon's quote

About the Gordon quote:


It's a bit misleading to use it in this article. It might very well have been accurate enough when Gordon published his book, but today it feels misplaced. He uses the term "Bosniaks" for the entire population and the geographical identity (Bosnians), while the modern usage of the word refers to the first third that Gordon was talking about. - Anonimski (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you totally. Its just like when some say Serbs are Orthodox with one part Muslims (Bosnians) and another Catholics (Croats). Other nationalities also had similar ideals, allways within the scope of extreme nationalism. Certainly many would oppose such claims, and ends up being same as Thomas Gordon one (miss)used here in similar way those would be. FkpCascais (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I added Bosnians as a second entry to the subsection's "see also" hatnote afterwards, it should clarify the modern terminology better. - Anonimski (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

One other note, I removed a similar quotation that had a text from 1822 saying "purest dialect of the Sclavonian language". It was misplaced and it used a very unscientific way of representing any language, definitively not fitting Wikipedia's tone and how topics usually are described here. - Anonimski (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • There is also another issue. A map in the Bosniaks#Islamization_and_Ottoman_era claims the following bellow the map: "Unlike all other European regions that came under Ottoman control, Bosnia would retain its integrity as a distinct entity, first as the Sanjak of Bosnia, and then as the Eyalet of Bosnia, the borders of which were largely based on the preceding Bosnian Kingdom." It is sourced by a now deadlink. I found it on another website, here, but I cant find anywhere the final part of the claim, the one saying that the borders of Bosnian Sanjak/Eyalet were largely based on the preceding Bosnian Kingdom. Having in mind the borders of the Bosnian Kingdom, which was not small at all and even got to be the major power in the region for a short period, it is inevitable to see that despite the Sanjak/Eyalet was substantially larger. So the claim (which by now is unsourced) is also misleading impliying that the borders were similar, which is a bit wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Number of Bosniaks in diaspora

I think the problem here is that in the "regions with significant populations" all Bosnian diaspora is counted as Bosniaks. This is simply a big mistake. There is plenty of Serbs and Croats from Bosnia that are counted amongst Bosnians in Austria, Switzerland and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.77.61.142 (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

HELP

How do I merge Konjevići with Konjević Polje? They are two articles about the same village. The official name of the village is Konjević Polje.--Plavipodrinjac (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Famous individuals

It's virtually Islam that makes someone a Bosniak. A lot of the descendants of the pre-Islamic population of Bosnia now identify as Croats. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"It's virtually Islam that makes someone a Bosniak"

No, it isn't.

"A lot of the descendants of the pre-Islamic population of Bosnia now identify as Croats"

So what? They didn't identify themselves as Croats during the time they lived. Rüstem Pasha would probably identify himself as Bosniak if he lived today, but that doesen't mean that he actually was a Bosniak.

Edits by Slovenski Volk

Nope, let's face it, you were relieved from a long-standing topic ban on the Balkans only today, tread lighlty! Your first edit corresponded to tendentious POV, venturing one-sidedly into infected polemy. The second was a lot better in terms of NPOV (apparently you do know better than your first edit), but still irrelevant to the section at hand. The matter of Bosnia, the DAI and Caslav's Serbian realm is already adressed in its proper context witihin the "Middle Ages" section of the article. Please expand as necessary. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

it wasn't tendentious, rather I thought it was being one-sidedly left out. I see it ismentioned later, albeit with some chronological erratum- which I will fix (Petar had expanded to Bosnia as early as late 9th century). But that it's mentioned in one section is good enough. I agree it doens;t need elaboration / duplication elsewhere. (BTW im not Serbian. )Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC).
Point is, it was "left out" with good reason. That particular section is on the etymology of the "Bosniak" ethnonym and not by whom and when Bosnia was ruled (with all the necessary polemy it entails). As for the "Middle Ages" section, there is no "chronological erratum" as far as I can tell (the dates are cited from a reliable source). The issue is again rather relevance. Gojniković's expansion into what probably corresponded to the valley of the river Bosna occured before any unequivocal reference to any entity known as Bosnia. In other words, Gojniković expanded into geopolitically uncharted territory, and as such finds little relevance in a section which understandably commences from a point from where we can actually talk about a "Bosnia" in a purely historiographic sense. Whether Gojniković, and other Serb or non-Serb rulers had sway over Bosnia before that point is irrelevant. The region in question has been inhabited by modern man for at least 40.000 years and presumably ruled by countless rulers before it was finally documented as "Bosnia" in the DAI. Apparently, considering these circumstances, Gojniković's rule over Bosnia is relevant primarily from a Serbian perspective of Bosnian history (which is also the reason it is included in the article on Bosnian Serbs) since it pinpoints the earliest documented instance of Serbian rule on Bosnian territory, but much less so from a Bosniak (or for that matter Croat) perspective. In addition, your insistence on writing out the name of a chapter of a book which is already beyond obscure is peculiar while also unnecessarily opening a Pandora's box of polemy based around conflicting interpretations of that chapter. For the scope of this article, it is well and enough to conclude that Bosnia was under Caslav's sway at the time of the DAI without adding undue polemy. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 16:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


fair enough . The period in question is indeed sketchy, and is probably peripheral to the question of Bosniaks Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth of Bosnia and Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia

@Norrskensstämmor: I challenge you to provide a single English-language WP:RS that describes Elizabeth of Bosnia and Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia as Bosniaks. Last time I had this discussion, the editor I was having the exchange with directed me to a bunch of Youtube videos and told me to listen to the way Poles pronounce the word "Bošnjanin" (an archaic term for Bosnian, not Bosniak—as the SDA and other nationalist politicians would have it). Their inclusion is equivalent to Macedonians (ethnic group) featuring a picture of Alexander the Great or Serbs featuring one of Constantine. It's completely ahistorical and goes against the scholarship of folks like Fine, Malcolm, etc. who stress that medieval Bosnians were not "Bosniaks", "Croats" and "Serbs" in the contemporary sense. I suggest you do some reading. Failure to provide reliable sources is grounds for removal, since without academic verification, the article is essentially peddling nationalist pseudo-history (and has been for the last year or so). 23 editor (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Laughing in text is not especially classy, but please bear with me this once. You cannot be serious 23editor, haha! Constantine and Alexander the Great were not even Slavs let alone "Serbs" or "Macedonians". Actually, they predate the arrival of Slavs in the Balkans altogether. Yet you find their inclusion equivalent to including Slavic individuals of medieval Bosnia (i.e. Bosnians) into the infobox of a contemporary Slavic population of Bosnia who are equally much Bosnians, as well as Bosniaks. Does the absurdity of your hefty comparison not strike you? Whichever way one attempts to disrupt and dispute the ethnic continuity of Bosnia these historic figures undoubtedly represent the ancestors of Bosniaks (as well as Bosnians). Constantine and Alexander the Great are not the ancestors of Serbs or Macedonians in any sense of the word. Moreover, there is no point in disputing the obvious fact that the Bosniak identity is more homegrown to Bosnia than the exogenously adopted "Bosnian Serb" and "Bosnian Croat" identities of the 19th century. And yes, Bošnjanin is an archaic term for "Bosnian", as is Bosniak. 'Bosniak' (Bošnjak) itself is derived from the older 'Bošnjanin'. However, what you seem to operate on is the fallacious belief that "Bosnian" in this sense may simply be translated as the contemporary "Bosanci", a notion barely a century old and which largely rests on the [only recent] division of Bosnians into three ethnic groups along religous lines, whereas Bosnians in the sense of the Bošnjani or pre-19th century Bosniaks were not. In my opinion, you appear to approach the subject from one irrational extreme and Norrskensstämmor from another, both slightly tarnished with nationalist ideology. As for the matter per se I do not have any definite opinion, since the issue is not worth my time. The actual quality of a article depends the least on which individuals are to be included into the infobox or not. However, arguments can be equally made for and against the specific inclusions, as is true for the dubious inclusion of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha in the Serbs infobox. Nonetheless, the argument that these medieval individuals cannot be considered Bosniaks in the "modern sense" of the word is irrelevant. As a matter of fact they can neither be considered "Bosnians" in the modern sense, as already explained. And the same point could be made about any medieval persona in relation to their "future nations", including the Serbs or Croats. The current national ethnic identities are a construct of the 19th century, and ever developing. Despite the wishful presentations of nationalists there are no perfect continuities between ethnic identity and state in a historic persepctive, which is also what makes Serb nationalist attempts at dismembering a Bosnian "continuity" whilst upholding a purportedly solid continuity of their own so ahistorical. The bottomline is, I had to refute your beyond absurd comparison. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Saying the comparision is "absurd" is no more absurd that saying these two individuals were Bosniaks. Sure, they were the ancestors of modern Bosnians. But Bosniaks are not the only Bosnians. By your own logic, Stephen and Elizabeth are both Serbs and Croats as well (unless, of course, you're insinuating that these two groups are not indigenous to Bosnia and that Bosniaks are the only "pure" Bosnians, which is ridiculous.) Again, bring me two English-language WP:RS, peer-reviewed and published by an academic institution which explicitly state that one or the other were Bosniaks. And while you're at it, try finding one WP:RS not written by a Bosniak that states Bošnjani and Bosniaks are one and the same. If you can't find these, which I suspect will be the case, I'll go ahead and remove the two and the onus will be on you to prove why they should be included. As for your rather off-topic jab on Sokolović, that article has got nearly a dozen sources which describe him as a Serb. To suggest that his inclusion on the Serbs infobox is somehow less justified than Stephen and Elizabeth's inclusion here is to be ignorant of the sources and what they explicitly do and don't say. And there goes your argument. I know it isn't classy to laugh, but... 23 editor (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
23 editor seems right, cause this sort of inclusions without a RS end up being WP:OR. FkpCascais (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course I'm right. For some reason none of the editors supportive of these individuals' inclusion offer any English-language, non-Bosnian, peer-reviewed WP:RS to back up their claims. As for the assertion that Bošnjani is simply an archaic term for Bosniak, the Slovene academic Velikonja rejects this claim , saying: "The people identified themselves as Bosnians (Bošnjani) in a geographic sense rather than an ethnic or religious one." But that's going slightly off topic. This sub-section is about Stephen and Elizabeth, and again, I see no reliable sources that clearly and unequivocally describe them as Bosniaks. 23 editor (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Turkey

Where did the Joshua Project find 101,000 Bosniaks living in Turkey? It doesn't give any information about that. It is serious as the Turkish Government puts the number at 2 millions. Maybe keeping only the Turkish government numbers is a better idea.NobleFrog (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Article suffers from politically correct writing

Joseph Broz promoted Yugoslav Muslims to the Muslim Nation. The same Muslim Nation in Bosnia and Herzegovina renamed itself to Bosniaks. The idea of Bosniaks as a nation did not exist before.--X2Faces (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Lol.

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. TravisRade (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That is not an RfC and it doesn't follow the RfC process. It's just a collection of opinions and has no authority. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The RfC was opened correctly. please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Proposal_for_the_deletion_of_all_the_galleries_of_personalities_from_the_infoboxes_of_articles_about_ethnic_groups. Dkfldlksdjaskd (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding two added links.

Joshua Project fails WP:RS, and so does the other one that mentions one small line about Bosniaks amounting two million in Turkey from a news paper. Therefore, I removed both links and added tags to the estimations.([2]) - LouisAragon (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy of Sources

I came upon this page while looking for the number of Bosniaks in Sweden. The source on this page for 80k Bosniaks in Sweden doesn't actually mention Bosniaks / Bosnian Muslims *at all*. It states 80k *Bosnians*. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.80.55 (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Pictures of modern day Bosniaks

What happened to the photos of Bosniaks? While I recognize going back two centuries to trace back Bosniaks can be problematic, I still think we should have those who are recognized as classic Bosniaks in the modern 20th century sense at least (Alija Izetbegovic, Mustafa Ceric, Adil Zulfikarpasic, Muhamed Filipovic, etc).

Bosniaks like Zlatan Ibrahimovic should be added to this list, hugely influential in sports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B000:7700:D524:37C1:BA06:7E85 (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Partial truth

In this regard, Christian Bosnians had not described themselves as either Serbs or Croats prior to the 19th century, and in particular before the Austrian occupation in 1878, when the current tri-ethnic reality of Bosnia and Herzegovina was configured based on religious affiliation.[48]

The author may held this opinion, but from very wikipedia itself: "The Hrvatinić was a medieval noble house with traditional domain in Donji Kraji in western Bosnia".

So there is a catholic noble family with a clearly Croatian ethnicity (Hrvatinić, lat. Horvatinus, Huruatin) in Bosnia prior to 19.century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iko Grozny (talk • contribs) 07:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

If this is not enough, there are writers from 16th century such as Evliya Celebi or Tarihi Aali who talk about croats in bosnia prior to 19th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iko Grozny (talk • contribs) 07:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

"Contrary to frequent Serb and Croat nationalist claims, Bosnia and Herzegovina constitutes a historical entity which has its own identity and its own history.[61] These two neighbors have, indeed, occupied parts of its territory, but only for brief periods of time and, as such, neither Serbia nor Croatia has any serious historical claims to Bosnia.[61][62] " This is total bullshit! Bosnia was part pf medieval Croatian kingdom. Later Bosnian kingdom was only a name because name Croatia was taken in Hungaro-Croatian kingdom. All Bosnian noblemen were catholic and muslims in Bosnia spoke Croatian exclusive dialect until second Yugoslavia and imposed "Serbo Croatian language". Just look up what Muslim politicians from Independent state of Croatia said about their nationality.


Why moderators tolerate statement of "several instances of ethnic cleansing and genocide" of "Bosniaks" by the Bosnian Serbs and Croats - who, by the very definition of the term are Bosniaks, just as much as Bosniam Muslims are - at the beginning, without even requesting backing up such statement with a (credible) source? Is Wikipedia an educational project, or a political propaganda tool? If the Bosnian Muslim have been subjected to "several ethnic cleansing and genocides" by non-Muslim Bosnians, how is it that their relative proportion in the population has been constantly increasing, and literally exploding more recently, from 26% in 1961 (SFRJ census data) to 43% in the last pre-war census (1991), and to ~50% now?

( Wejvi (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC) )

The answer is simply higher birthrate and huge amount of emigration by other ethnic groups. Extermination of Bosniaks was well documented in the last war, when Bosniaks were 43% of population. Nowadays due to higher population growth they are around 50%. High population growth does not negate genocide and extermination Hrulj (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Logical fallacies

This note, as given in the text, is a correct definition of the today's term:

This term is considered inaccurate since not all Bosniaks profess themselves to Islam or practice the religion. Partly because of this, since the dissolution of Yugoslavia, Bosniak has replaced Muslim as an official ethnic term in part to avoid confusion with the religious term Muslim – an adherent of Islam. Additionally, Bosniaks are native to Montenegro, Serbia including Kosovo, and Croatia whilst Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina may be practised by non-Bosniaks, such as the Turks of Bosnia and Herzegovina."Bosnia and Herzegovina: People", The World Factbook, American Central Intelligence Agency, ISSN 1553-8133,

So, the term is not accurate because it includes those who do not consider themselves Bosniaks (Serbs and Croats) and live in Bosnia. On another hand, it includes the Muslims living outside Bosnia (Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia) who are converts to Islam/descendants of Montenegrins, Serbs, and Macedonians. To go back in the past, makes no sense especially to the times when the Islam was not present in Bosnia. --X2Faces (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


No, the term is not accurate because it groups all muslims as Bosniaks, which is not representative. There are muslim Serbs and Croats in Bosnia, there are non muslim Bosniaks, and atheists from all groups. Representing an ethnicity as just a religious group is not only disingenuous but also insulting. --Hrulj (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


Couldn't agree more, labelling Serbs as Bosniaks is not only disingenuous, but representing Muslims as an ethnicity couldn't be more insulting.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bosniaks. 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:

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) 09:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2016

TheAnonymousManoftheShire (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Empty request. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bosniaks. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Musulmans in Bosna and in Macedonia.

In the artical are givan statistic data about the census in Yugoslavia - the people that selfidentificate as musulmans. Slav speaking muslumans in Macedonia are diferent ethicity from the musulmans in Bosna! Even in Turkey they separet the slav musulmans on two - bosnians - this that speac the former serbocroatian language and pomaks - that speak bulgarian incl. all macedonian musulmans. So you must remove the statistics for the musulmans in Macedonia as bosnians. It is not corect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.237.139.162 (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Official recognition of Bosniak ethnicity by Austria-Hungary

In the identity section of the article the first sentence of the second paragraph states; "In Yugoslavia, unlike the preceding Austro-Hungarian Empire, there was no official recognition of Bosniak ethnicity."

That would indicate that Bosniak ethnicity was officially recognized by Austria-Hungary. I don't think that claim is true. Is it? The source provided is dead. I have found no mention of Bosniaks in demographics section of the Austria-Hungary article or within the Ethnic and religious composition of Austria-Hungary or even United States of Greater Austria. Regards, Ratipok (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

    • No, it is not true, first attempts of creating Muslim ethnic group (mainly from Serbian ethnic group of people who did go to Islam durring Ottoman rule) in Bosnia are made in XIX century, but they were never recognized, first successful attempt of creating religious ethnic group was done in 90's of XX century. I'm not really suprized why POV of this article isn't disputed by facts already, but I am suprized there isn't much talk here. 109.245.175.175 (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2019

Bosniak IS NOT ethnic group, Bosniak are people in Bosnia&Herzegovina, all of them (including muslims, orthodo, katolics...) 80.65.68.106 (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you are confusing Bosniak with Bosnian. Rua (mew) 15:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2019

I would like to add facts to this part of the paragraph The Early Slavs,

I would like to clarify facts that have proven wrong about the Bosniak people. Emir34544 (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Emir34544, which are these new facts and where can we check the lot of reliable academic sources supporting them? Jingiby (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Bosniaks are not a nation

See also: Special:Diff/907794558/907850121 § Serbs are not a nation

You can see relevant discussion there; it is analogy and some (or the most of) sources apply here too. Please cite sources and compare them with definition of nationality to validly conclude Bosniaks are nation; it's impossible. --Obsuser (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is related to that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Bosniaks. Krakkos (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup work

Cleanup work is needed on this page. There was info other editors had tagged as uncited material from several years ago, including 2015 and 2017. There were so many images and pictures that were clogging up the page for the readers. The lede section is woefully too short and fails WP:LEAD, it is not an adequate summary of the entire article's contents. I did a bit of cleanup work to improve the page with these items in mind. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I have removed some of the images and added several tags which might help anyone who is willing to work on the cleanup. I agree with your observations. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Turkey to the infobox

Turkey actually has a quite prominent Bosniak minority. They are partly Turkified but I still think that they need to be mentioned in the infobox. 2 million figure seems unlikely and unreliable (even for descendants), but I've found a paper (in Turkish) about the ethnic composition of Turkey. According to the paper there are around 40.000 (citing a 2006 KONDA research) to 101.000 (citing United States Center for World Mission) Bosniaks living in Turkey. In 1965 (the last Turkish census with linguistic data) there were around 50.000 Bosniac speakers too. Apart from that this paper supposedly state that there are around 600 to 800 thousand people of Bosniak origin in Turkey, yet I can't confirm as I can't speak Serbo-Croatian. --89.245.131.94 (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021

AmarildoB (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it is important to add that Bosniaks are autochthonous European people in order to avoid misunderstanding related to factually incorrect narratives.

Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2021

Edit native to native and indigenous Slavic people. This is because they are indigenous to the Balkans and Primarily to Bosnia. Thank you 2405:6E00:DB2:4700:15C4:89D5:E53A:346 (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Native and indigenous have the same meaning when speaking of peoples and populations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

"Bosniac(Bošnjak)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bosniac(Bošnjak) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 29#Bosniac(Bošnjak) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Symbology

Bosniak people have a number of crest relating to their origins and faith. 11:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)\\\11:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)~\\11:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)~\ 137.59.221.36 (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Please state a source for this. CheeseInTea (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Use of the template "Lower" in the infobox?

Greetings and felicitations. I'm wondering: why are the citations in the infobox are enclosed in "Lower" templates, making them subscripted? —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Bosniaks

according to the comparison of the South Slavic nations, we can say that in addition to the real genocide, it continues in another form as the erasure of the number of Bosniaks, and this can only be noticed in relation to them. For Serbs and Croats, informal information are taken into account of institutions and not the census . This is not taken into account for Bosniaks here is proof https://web.archive.org/web/20090209021046/http://www.milliyet.com.tr/default.aspx?aType=SonDakika&Kategori=yasam&ArticleID=873452&Date=07.06.2008&ver=16 where it is estimated that there are around 2 million Bosniaks in Turkey, or that 2 million Turks are of Bosniak origin . Not only in Turkey, but in the entire Levant there are many people of Bosniak origin, e.g. the surname Bushnak. Then there is an error where it says that there are 21 thousand Bosniaks in Slovenia. According to the census, Bosniaks identified themselves as either Bosniak, Muslim or Bosnian, according to the 2002 census there were about 38 thousand of them, almost the same as Serbs and Croats in Slovenia. After 2002, in 2020, it is estimated that there are 60,000 to 80,000 Bosniaks in Slovenia, i.e. more than Croats and Serbs https://old.delo.si/novice/slovenija/oni-so-bosnjaki-ceprav-smo-jih-klicali-bosanci.html . If we consider the official data from 2021, there are about 80 thousand citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the majority of them are Bosniaks https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStat/sl. Dinodinac (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Bosniaks

according to the comparison of the South Slavic nations, we can say that in addition to the real genocide, it continues in another form as the erasure of the number of Bosniaks, and this can only be noticed in relation to them. For Serbs and Croats, informal information are taken into account of institutions and not the census . This is not taken into account for Bosniaks here is proof https://web.archive.org/web/20090209021046/http://www.milliyet.com.tr/default.aspx?aType=SonDakika&Kategori=yasam&ArticleID=873452&Date=07.06.2008&ver=16 where it is estimated that there are around 2 million Bosniaks in Turkey, or that 2 million Turks are of Bosniak origin . Not only in Turkey, but in the entire Levant there are many people of Bosniak origin, e.g. the surname Bushnak. Then there is an error where it says that there are 21 thousand Bosniaks in Slovenia. According to the census, Bosniaks identified themselves as either Bosniak, Muslim or Bosnian, according to the 2002 census there were about 38 thousand of them, almost the same as Serbs and Croats in Slovenia. After 2002, in 2020, it is estimated that there are 60,000 to 80,000 Bosniaks in Slovenia, i.e. more than Croats and Serbs https://old.delo.si/novice/slovenija/oni-so-bosnjaki-ceprav-smo-jih-klicali-bosanci.html . If we consider the official data from 2021, there are about 80 thousand citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the majority of them are Bosniaks https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStat/sl. Dinodinac (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2020

As stated in the above section, I request the addition of Turkey to the infobox. It should be " Turkey: 40.000 to 800.000 (est.)", citing the two sources given above. 89.245.131.94 (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done After reviewing the sources carefully and searching for the original sources used in that thesis, I determined that the KONDA report (2006) seems to be most reliable. The most important info is on page 15 (0.06% Bosniak) and page 16 (48 million population used in calculations). This leads to a rough total of 28,800 Bosniaks as of 2006, which I added to the infobox. If you want to introduce the other sources that you are referring to (USCWM, census, etc.), please find them in their original form before reviving this request. TimSmit (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear Smit, it's about double standards. en.wiki and I don't know who edits it about Croats and Serbs, where they take into account, for example something like this- without cenus reports https://web.archive.org/web/20090209021046/http://www.milliyet.com.tr/default.aspx?aType=SonDakika&Kategori=yasam&ArticleID=873452&Date=07.06.2008&ver=16 this is not apply for Bosniaks, you know how much errors are there is in those numbers ? because you don't take into account that Bosniaks defined themselves either as Bosniak, Bosnian or Muslim. e.g. Slovenia according to the 2002 census, there were about 38,000 Bosniaks, approximately the same as Serbs and Croats, Wikipedia says 21,000. 20 years after census, according to an estimate, there are 60,000-80,000, more than Croats and Serbs. https://old.delo.si/novice/slovenija/oni-so-bosnjaki-ceprav-smo-jih-klicali-bosanci.htm . this is the essence of how they treat Bosniaks, they want there not to be so many of them, on the other side the assumption is taken into account regarding Croats and Serbs,... In the case of Bosniaks, according to the official census, their number on Wikipedia is reduced Dinodinac (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Helo, according to this estimate, there are 2 million Bosniaks in Turkey https://web.archive.org/web/20090209021046/http://www.milliyet.com.tr/default.aspx?aType=SonDakika&Kategori=yasam&ArticleID=873452&Date=07.06.2008&ver=16 I don't understand why they take into account the estimates regarding Croats, that according to the estimate there are 1.2 million Croats in the USA, but according to the census there are 400,000. Then it is estimated that there are 400,000 Croats in Argentina and 350,000 in Chile without a census. Why is it not taken this into account for Bosniaks, who are numerous in the entire Levant, not only in Turkey because of eksodus e.g. the surname Bushnak. Then there is an error where it says that there are 21 thousand Bosniaks in Slovenia. According to the census, Bosniaks identified themselves as either Bosniak, Muslim or Bosnian, according to the 2002 census there were about 38 thousand of them, almost the same as Serbs and Croats in Slovenia. After 2002, in 2020, it is estimated that there are 60,000 to 80,000 Bosniaks in Slovenia, i.e. more than Croats and Serbs https://old.delo.si/novice/slovenija/oni-so-bosnjaki-ceprav-smo-jih-klicali-bosanci.html . If we consider the official data from 2021, there are about 80 thousand citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the majority of them are Bosniaks https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStat/sl Dinodinac (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Mistake in diaspora map

Remove the diaspora in geographical distribution. It’s for all bosnians and not only bosniaks. That diaspora map you put is in the article Bosnians. 79.106.124.205 (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Bosniaks ethnonym

Bosniaks were referred only as Bosnian Muslims and not only as Bosnians. Serbs and Croats were also referred sometimes as Bosnians. 79.106.124.205 (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Origin

They are also native to Sandžak region. Include this in the article. 188.172.110.219 (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bosniaks/Archive_6&oldid=1228807343"