Talk:Bosniaks of Serbia/Archive 1

Archive 1

comment

This should be split into two articles. serbia and Montenegro are two separate countries now and there should be separate article about Bosniak population in both of them. PANONIAN (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Join

I suggest joining Bosniaks of Montenegro to this articel. It seems logic, as that people belongs to one not only nation, but of the same sub-ethnic origin. --Edin Sijercic 21:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree, both states are now independent, I see no reason why we should join articles of two separate states. Why then not join articles Bosniaks in Serbia and Bosniaks in Macedonia. There is no logic in this. PANONIAN (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware that we'll need thousands of articles if yu plan for every people in every state? So what if the states separate. Why do we have Bosniaks? Why not split to Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina and other. Bosniaks live in Sandzak, other Bosniaks that live elsewhere in Montenegro and Serbia are not relevant. Its not notable enuph to have separate articles.

Bosniaks in Serbia and Bosniaks in Macedonia are not of same ethnic origin, do not live in a compact geo-historical (to us even political) entity. How can you say there is no logic? Did yu think at all? The SANDZAK Bosniacs/Muslims are different from OTHER Bosniacs/Muslims; the stupid border between Montenegro and Serbia does NOT split us (we still have cultural institutions for whole Sanjak, Bosniak Matica for Sanjak; all parties run in both parts of Sandzak, how do yu not understand?). --Edin Sijercic 23:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not plan articles "for every people in every state", only for certain peoples with significant demographic or historical presence in certain country. Both countries, Serbia and Montenegro, have significant Bosniak populations and therefore articles about Bosniaks in both countries should exist. Opposite to this, there is no need that we writte articles about Bosniaks in Romania or Bosniaks in Latvia because there is no significant Bosniak population in those countries. Also, Bosniaks do not live only in Sandžak - there are also sizable native Bosniak populations in Mačva district of Serbia or in Ulcinj municipality of Montenegro, etc, etc... Also, this was not meant to be article about Sandžak - you already have separate article about Sandžak, which also speak about Bosniaks. This article was meant to be about something else. PANONIAN (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Grbsandzaka.svg

Image:Grbsandzaka.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Languages

The artice shows Basque as a language spoken by Bosniaks... I doubt that is true. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viperov (talk • contribs) 12:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Klacko's so-called "rearrangement" of the article content

While it did improve the article in some aspects it also inexplicably removed valid content in the form of two maps. One showing the demographic breakdown of the Sandzak region (thus including Serbia) and one describing the historic ties between Sandzak and Ottoman Bosnia (no different than showing a map of Caslav Klonimir's Serbian 10th century realm in the Bosnian Serbs article). I suspect this might have been a POV attempt to underestimate these historic aspects and so I disapprove of this part of Klacko's "rearrangement". 90.230.57.190 (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Demographic map is not adequate and relevant for this article. Firstly, this is not article about Sandžak, but about Bosniaks in Serbia. Although it may overlap in some aspects, contents of these two articles are essentially different since article about Bosniaks in Serbia does not need to include Bosniaks in Montenegro. Secondly, map is somewhat pretentious since it shows some semi-borders where they don't exist (borders of non-existant Sandžak region, in sense of a administartive unit/region); not to mention still questionable Kosovo borders with Serbia. Last but not the least, I am not against demographic map per se, but it should be the one which concerns Bosniaks in Serbia in particular (e.g. demographic map of Serbian part of Sandžak), not Bosniaks in Montenegro or Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Historic map, showing Bosnian elayet, is also somewhat problematic since it does have some dubious claims. Nevertheles, I am ok with that map being part of the article, as long as footnote is corrected as it is misleading since Bosnian elayet is in no way continuation of medieval Bosnian kingdom, at least there should be some credible refference confirming that claim. Until then, footnote in such form is going to be modified.

Regards, Klačko (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The claim concerning the Bosnian Kingdom was removed in my previous edit on account of it being exagerated. Based on your reasonable explanation above, I accept the occlusion of the demographic map. 90.230.57.190 (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sulejman Pačariz in the infobox

If nobody objects, I'll remove Sulejman Pačariz from the infobox, and few others in order to sort out the infobox images of well known Bosniaks in Serbia. The reason for this is that Pačariz was a Nazi collaborator who was responsible for various killings, therefore he's not a famous Bosniak, but rather infamous. His image in the infobox can only have a political agenda as a result, as there's no good reason for including him as a prominent Bosniak. My point is not to accuse anyone of promoting a certain political agenda, as this was probably unintended.

There are currently 12 images, so in order to sort them out, I'll remove three images. Along with Pažariz, I'll remove Téa Obreht, as her ethnicity is unclear (she's half Muslim half Slovene who obtained US citizenship) and Amela Terzić, as she has the least page views. --AnulBanul (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Discrimination against Albanians

I made an edit to this page that referenced a study about ethic Albanians identifying themselves as Bosniaks on the census. Article text stayed "sociopolitical discrimination after World War Two. Article stated self-reported discrimination following breakup of Yugoslavia, not in the period following WWII and the Yugoslav Civil Wars. That change was made. Canlawtictoc (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)