Talk:Bosniaks

• /Archive1: Discussions until June 5, 2006.

Introduction

Does anybody have any issues or comments about the introduction? For a number of reasons, it's very important that we get this part right. There have been so many edit wars and arguements over this most basic summary of the topic that it's imperative we find something we can all agree on and stick to if the article is ever to become stable. I think we should all be able to agree on the information presented in it. I would like to add another paragraph in between the current two with further basic information about Bosniaks, but I am not sure exactly what to write. Live Forever 23:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have is that the Bosnians are called "Indigenous." I understand this is a sensitive topic, but even the oral tradition of Bosniak people of many families recalls a time when they considered themselves Serb or Croat by ethnicity. i.e. Mesa Selimovic.

There are no problems, there haven't been any edit wars until you showed up. Damir Mišić

I beg to differ. For instance, from merely casually glancing at my watchlist I noticed numerous significant disagreements and edit-wars between you and user Jadran. Live Forever 00:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I, Jadran and Duja haven't reverted this article for some time. You removed this vital part: The modern Bosniaks are a Southeast European ethnic group descended from South Slavic converts to Islam, that lived in Bosnian Kingdom (they called themselves Good Bosnians, in Bosnian: "Dobri Bošnjani", "Dobrije Bošnjana"). There are newer theories, by mainly local historians, claiming that Bosniaks were not originally Slavs at all, but in fact Illyrians, who took up Slavic culture following the arrival of Slavs to the Balkans.Damir Mišić

You removed this vital part: The term Bosnian is somewhat imprecise in this context, as it denotes all inhabitants of Bosnia (i.e. not only Bosniaks, but also to Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats or anyone who lives there); the term rather being geographical whereas the term Bosniaks distinguishes ethnicity.Damir Mišić

I do not though disagree with your edits but please you removed to much and replaced it with worse and less informative text. Damir Mišić 00:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You haven't reverted the article essentially because the other users have either given up trying to reason with you or have settled for a hodgepodge nationalist compromise that is even farther from the truth than the conflicting versions themselves. As for your specific objections, the term "Dobri Bošnjani" is irrelevant in its correct context - as it is, it's there trying to make a political point by taking a side on the debate about that very term itself (i.e. that the inhabitants of pre-Ottoman Bosnia were already a distinct ethnic group that merely evolved into the modern-day Bosniaks through Islamicization). Such implications are very deceitful and do not accuratly portray the essential facts about the origins of Bosniaks. The new paragraph clearly states that Bosniaks are predominantly descenddnts of indigenous Bosnian converts to Islam - anything more than that is simply nationalistic wishful thinking. As for the Illyrian theory, it's complete pseudohistory used to needlessly reinforce the difference between Bosniaks and Serbs and Croats. It is completely irrelevent if Bosniaks are genetically descended from "Illyrians", partly because the "Illyrians" themselves were probably largely genetically descended from even earlier inhabitants of the west Balkans but also, more importantly, because ethnic groups are divided by culture, not genetics. Bosniaks speak a slavic language and so it doesn't matter whether they are genetically 1% or 99% what you call "Illyrian", they are still culturally (i.e. linguistically) Slavic. In the same way, Turks can be described as a Turkic people even if genetically they are largely descended from Greeks and other early peoples who inhabited Anatolia. By your logic, Turks are actually Greeks. Sounds silly, doesn't it? That's because it is, but, unfortunately, in the context of the Balkans such ludicrious nationalist pseudoscientifict theories are treated as valid opinions. Live Forever 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Damir, I think he(live forever) hit the nail on the head with what he said. :) --Jadran 07:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote above: Bosnjani do NOT need to be mentioned, and if you respected the historical facts about that word you wouldn't have any particular desire to see them mentioned either. Illyrian popular theories can not be mentioned because they are ridiculous and ahistorical, and the Bosnian kingdom already IS mentioned in noting that Bosniaks are descendants of INDIGENOUS Bosnian converts. The ethno-geographic nature of Bosniak identity is already mentioned in the very first paragraph. Live Forever 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

But I guess everybody are not as clever as you are! So they NEED the extra explainations and not only to have it explained in the opening paragraph in a shallow way. Bosnjani are the inhabitants of "pre-ottoman" bosnia, the adherents of bosnian church are Bosnjani - historically thought and accepted that bosniaks are descendants of these. Bosnia is most surely an illyrian name - the inhabitants of bosnia have undisputedly illyrian origins according to many local historians - and also western (i.e john fine with others who have mentioned a possibility) - turks greeks what? I will not even ask! No live this time you have gone to far. Damir Mišić

"historically thought and accepted"? Historically thought and accepted by who? That's just a really bad example of WP:Weasel. Imamovic, Malcolm, and a horde of other influential historians have soundly rejected that theory. Information retrieved from Ottoman defters shows that a miniscule portion of the population belonged to the Bosnian Church - labeling Bosniaks as having descended from them in particular is ridiculous. Bosnia might be an Illyrian name, but Bosniaks got their name from the country and not the other way around, so I don't see what this has to do with any alleged connection to Illyrians. Illyrian origin doesn't mean anything because the only real influence the Illyrians have had on Bosniaks is genetic - genetics is not what nations and ethnic groups are defined by. Having (partial) Illyrian origins doesn't make Bosniaks "actually Illyrians" and "not Slavs", just as having Celtic origin doesn't make the English Celts, having Aztec origin doesn't make the Mexicans Aztec, having Berber origin doesn't make the Maghreb Arabs Berber, etc. etc. And the only scientific studies on the subject have shown that Bosnian Croats are even more, what you call, "Illyrian" than Bosniaks, so I fail to see what point you're trying to make. If we applied your logic we'd have to say that Croats and Montenegrins are also actually "Illyrians". Live Forever 06:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Live Forever, I could kiss you! If i didnt have a wife or kids haha Hvala Bogu someone has been able to hit the nail on the head!--Jadran 07:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"But I guess everybody are not as clever as you are!-Damir Mišić" I assume you are going to include your self in this mix, so how bout i make it simplier for you by putting in bold the points you seem not to grasp!--Jadran 07:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Wow, what a little war in my absence. I didn't forget about the article, just have a bit less time. Since old discussions were archived, let me re-copy something from there and cite sources (something I've never ever seen Damir doing).

Here's http://www.iis.unsa.ba/prilozi/30/30_prikazi_nove.htm an excerpt from theories of renowned Bosniak historian Mustafa Imamović, and I won't even quote less benevolent historians. (Emphasis mine) Duja 09:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC):

Porijeklo. Većina Bošnjaka prihvata jedan mit o porijeklu, koji vodi u njihovu etnogenezu u srednjem vijeku. Popularna legenda je jednostavna, privlačna i nedvosmislena. Nakon doseljavanja na Balkanski poluotok u šestom i sedmom stoljeću, priča kaže, da su stanovnike Bosne koji su govorili slavenskim jezikom, pokrstili kršćanski misionari iz Rima na zapadu i Konstantinopola na istoku. Bosanci, koji nisu htjeli pripasti pod katolike ili pravoslavne, stvorili su svoju crkvu i mnogi su vjernici prihvatili dualističku herezu, poznatu kao bogumilstvo. Srednjovjekovna bosanska država pod vodstvom Kulina bana (vladao od 1180-1204) i kralja Tvrtka (vladao 1353-91) zauzimala je velika prostranstva. Ona je stvorila sigurno uporište za Crkvu bosansku i bogumilske heretike. Nakon osmanskog osvajanja Bosne (završeno 1463), bogumili i plemstvo srednjovjekovne Bosne je en masse primilo islam i postali su bosanski Muslimani, pripadnici grupe, koja je danas poznata kao Bošnjaci.

U Historiji Bošnjaka Mustafa Imamović zauzima nešto drukčiji stav o bošnjačkoj etnogenzi i ne negira popularni mit. On citira brojne (recentne studije o Crkvi bosanskoj i zaključuje da se malo zna o doktrinama, ostavljajući otvorenim pitanje, da li je crkva bila uporište bogumilske hereze. Više se zna o hijerarhiji i strukturi Crkve bosanske i Imamović tvrdi da je crkvena organizacija podržavala etnopolitički razvoj srednjovjekovne bosanske države.

Imamović je primanje islama u Bosni ocrtao kao duži proces (a nije bio brz) i sa malim izuzetcima bio je dobrovoljan. On citira mnoge recentne studije, koje se osnivaju na osmanskim dokumentima popisivanja stanovništva i izvještajima katoličkih vizitatora, da pokaže kako se primanje islama odvijalo postepeno, od 1450-tih do početka sedamnaestog stoljeća. Nadalje, oni koji su primili islam dolazili su iz sve tri kršćanske vjeroispovijesti: katoličanstva, pravoslavlja i Crkve bosanske. On je odbacio spoznaju da je bosansko srednjovjekovno plemstvo en masse primilo islam, da sačuva svoje posjede i privilegije, on tvrdi, da je sultan davao zemlju samo onima koji su u bitkama služili Carstvu. On ne hvali hipoteze o rapidnom i prisilnom primanju islama, što su neki historičari zastupali i izjavljuje, da se ovim želi diskreditirati autentičnost bošnjačke nacionalnosti.

Proposed move

Should we move this page to "Bosniak people"? I'm intersted in what the rest of you think. The majority of other articles about ethnic groups go by the convention "(singular form) people", including both thus-far featured articles (Pashtun people and Tamil people). I would personally support such a move, but I want to make sure that everyone else would be on board as well. Live Forever 05:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I am not sure if that is a smart move particulary since Bosniaks are usually viewed in context with article about Serbs and Croats and I am affraid that renaming this article would somehow set Bosniaks apart from those other arguably related article. On the other hand it would somewhat help with the confusion between Bosnians vs Bosniaks by differentiating titles a bit more. I would like to here more arguements in favor of the move. --Dado 00:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dado, it seems not only Serbs and Croats follow the current Bosniaks convention, but Slovenes, Slovaks, Hungarians, Germans, Czechs, Greeks and Poles. There appears to be no overriding reason to change - I don't see how it could help to differentiate more between Bosnians and Bosniaks. Best to keep things the way they are.Osli73 07:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose too. As I see it, the general problem is lack of disambiguation of "member of ethnic group" versus "citizen of" in English language, as well incompleteness of nouns accompanying adjectives. For example, adjective "French" does not have plural noun—"Frenches" is ungrammatical, "Frenchmen" politically incorrect, ergo we have "French people". As many other articles cites by Osli confirm, there are no ambiguity problems with Bosniaks, so we should take the simplest path. Duja 08:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lack of Sources and References

This article goes on at length about the history and culture of Bosniaks, but no references are provided except for "The Peopling of Modern Bosnia-Herzegovina: Y - chromosome Haplogroups in the Three Main Ethnic Groups". Since the aforementioned article contains nothing regarding culuture or history I beleive that we need to expand out list of sources.

---

NPOV Check

I would like to have a domain area expert (i.e. someone with deep knowledge of genetics) perform an NPOV check on the genetics part of this article. It seems that the results of the research are being intentionally misinterpreted to push a particular view point.

In particular, I would like to have someone explain how a frequency of a certiain halo group or a sub-halo group can lead to the conclusion that a given ethnic group is indiginous in some geographic area. My knowledge regarding geneological genetic testing is not very strong, but according to this article http://www.slate.com/id/2138059/ we can not use genetic testing to deterime the origin or our ancient ancestors.

I'll have to say that I kind of agree with this user. I do, allthough, think that ancestors can be decided in some extent by genetictests but, however, not by the methods available now. Furthermore I have to say that the frequency of dinaric genes is not equal to indigenousness in the balkan area; dinarics can also be found in large amounts among ukrainans and german people, while the dinaric frequency, at the same time, is almost zero among native balkans peoples like greeks and albanians. So my conclusion is that high frequency of dinaric genes is not equal to indiginousness in balkan or mediteranian area. We should in some way rewrite that part of the article. Damir Mišić 21:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The genetics section now contains a contradiction. First it asserts "It should, however, be mentioned that "Dinaric genes" are not indicative of indigenousness to the Balkan or Mediterranean areas.". Then it concludes with "As it stands, current studies have shown that, genetically, Bosniaks are largely indigenous and have a large fraction of the ancient gene pool distinctive for the Balkan area." I have removed the later sentance in order to eliminate the contradiction.

That second statement was added on later by someone with an agenda. Either way, don't worry about the genetics section much right now because it will probably disappear with a more economical history section and creation of a "main" article over the next few days. As for sources for the culture, it's essentially all basic facts so I don't see what the problem is at the moment.

I am disputing the neutrality of the whole,and I can pin-point a lot... What I can see it is just making some stupid remarks about denial of "Dinaric genes"(Theory of mutation... that Dinaric is some creative mutation from Atlantic and Mediteranian antropological type have been long time dead buried in the stupidity of 20 century),and on top of that there are citation about absent of presence in "native"Balcan peoples.From where are they are native?From neolitic settlers?.And where are theories about migrations of Bogumils and Babuns in Bosnia based on real historical events wich can be traced back from Srbia,Macedonia,Bulgaria etc ?.And what is with findings of Semino and others wich have shoved some other meanings of that presence of Dinaric genes in populations in Europe-paleolitic dispersion from Balcan refuge...

History section

The history section is a bit garbeld.

• Does the genetics paragraph really belong here? Are there any interesting conclusions that can be drawn from it? Are the conclusions correct? The Croats article has quite a long section on genetics, though I'm not sure they have interpreted the results of the studies they cite correctly (or have overintrepreted them). I propose that it is taken out all together or considerably improved.

• Is someone planning to enter informatin on the Islamicization and prosperity, Decline and development, The struggle for recognition and National awakening and genocide sections? If not, take them out for the meantime.

• To me it seems that Bosniak identity is closely related to but different from islamic identity. Perhaps they are even each others opposites (I'm not sure). However, I think it would be interesting to have more on the Bosniak identity and its relation to Muslim identity. One possible source is [1]

Osli73 14:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree.

• Yes, the genetics paragraph does belong here because it provides important historical insight into the background of the Bosniak people. It debunks the popular traditional view that the South Slavs are predominantly Slavic people who somehow replaced the existing inhabitants of the region, and more or less confirms the long-standing suspicion that the inhabitants of the West Balkans are for the most part direct descendants of the same people who have lived there for thousands of years and who were assimilated during the Slavic migrations in the 6th and 7th centuries. As for the veracity of what is written in the article, it is essentially paraphrased from the summary of the findings done by the researchers themselves - it states exactly what the study found. How exactly the information presented can be "considerably improved" is beyond me, considering that it amounts to two very simple and directly referenced sentences. Considering the well established sections on genetics found on other "people" articles (i.e. Basques, it would be absurd to get rid of these perfectly fine and valid sentences here.
• Yes, someone is planning to enter information for those sections and that someone is planning to do it in the very near future.
• I don't understand what your point is. Bosniak is a national identity, Muslim a religious one. End of story. I will read your source though, as perhaps it can be utilized elsewhere in the article. Live Forever 17:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Live Forever, about the background of the Bosniak identity I found this pretty interesting article (especially towards the middle part). Basically it seems to assert that there has been a long-standing Bosniak identity but that it has differed quite a lot throughout history - Muslim, Turkish, Ottoman, Slavic and Bosniak. I think entering some of this information might give the article a bit more depth.

http://www.iranian.com/History/2003/November/Bosnia/index.html

Osli73 09:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes

Rv. Please see talk page.

1. It's very hard to say exactly what the population of Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina is, but it is definitely not anywhere near 2,159,508. The CIA factbook doesn't provide an exact number of Bosniaks but merely a percentage, and then proceeds to give us a separate population estimate. As I said earlier, there is no reason to doubt their estimate that the country is 48% Bosniak - it seems perfectly valid. Their population figures are almost certainly faulty, however, because they add in population figures for the FBiH that include hundreds-of-thousands of diasporans. The European Union population estimates don't make the same mistake and they give a figure of approximately 3,800,000. Now, as I'm assuming we all agree that 48% is a reasonable estimate for Bosniak composition of BiH population; we are merely left to choose between the EU estimate and the U.S.A. estimate. The latter implies that after genocide, ethnic cleansing, a declining birth rate, and massive emigration (war and post-war); Bosnia and Herzegovina actually gained 200,000 people. I think the choice is clear.
2. Thank you whoever added the IPA pronunciation of the native word. That is a constructive improvement.
3. ”Slavic” or “Slavic-speaking”. Again, somebody obviously has a problem with portraying Bosniaks as Slavic so they’re trying to replace the wording with euphemisms that are easier for them to handle. The fact of the matter is that this change makes absolutely no sense; Slavs are a linguistic group, so what else does it mean to be “Slav” than to be “Slav-speaking”? The former version stays because the latter presumably intends to imply that Bosniaks aren’t “really Slav” (whatever that’s supposed to mean).
4. Making “indigenous converts to Islam” link to the Bosnian church is just plain wrong. Read Malcolm’s “A Short History” or Imamovic’s “History of the Bosniak People” – the Bosnian church was a very small and insignificant presence by the time Islamicization was underway. Most converts to Islam were (at least nominally) Catholic and Orthodox.
5. "their tie to the Bosnian historical region” or “their historical tie to the Bosnian-Herzegovinian region”. I’m honestly surprised you’d oppose this, but let me spell it out for you anyways. It’s important to note “Bosnian historical” region instead of “Bosnian-Herzegovinian region” because the former includes all territories historically considered part of or affiliated with Bosnia (including Herzegovina, Sandzak, etc.) whereas the latter confines this to the modern-day state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
6. The issue of having a separate section on the name… I would prefer that it stays with the introductory paragraph and would hope you’d reconsider. The situation really isn’t that complicated right now. I would, however, support eventually adding a section on “Etymology” similar to the one on the Bosnian Wikipedia – provided that it’s well referenced. The etymology section could perhaps, if you guys wish, explain what it is mentioned in the introductory paragraph in more detail. Live Forever 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Yes, Damir - to answer your remark on my talk page - the Bosnian church and kingdom will of course be mentioned in the history section.

Vrijedne su naročite pažnje religiozne i socijalne prilike ove zemlje prije turskog osvajanja. Većina tamošnjeg stanovništva pripadala je kršćanskoj heretičkoj sekti bogumila. Ovi šizmatici su od XIII stoljeća bili izvrgnuti progonima papa. Čak su pape protiv njih nekoliko puta preporučivali krstaški rat (papa Honorus III - 1221. godine, Gregori IX - 1238. godine, Innocent IV - 1246. godine i Benedict XII - 1337. godine. Inkvizicija je osnovana 1291. godine)Patnje koje su trpjeli bogumili u XV stoljeću postale su tako nesnošljive da su se radi svog spasa obraćali Turcima za samilost, jer su grubi postupci i pritisci bosanskog kralja i svećenstva bili takvi da im nema primjera. Njih četrdeset hiljada pobjeglo je u susjedne zemlje. Oni što nisu pobjegli poslani su u Rim, okovani u lance. Međutim, ove grozne mjere malo su usluge učinile umanjivanju bogumila u Bosni, jer se priča da je ova hereza jednako bila jaka i u 1462. godini.Sljedeće godine, kada je sultan Mehmed II podvrgao Bosnu, tamošnji su katolici napustili svoj kraj. Ključe Bobovca, prijestonice kraljeve, predao je Turcima njegov namjesnik koji je bio bogumil. Pošto su se i druga mjesta i utvrde povele za njim, za jednu sedmicu palo je sultanu u ruke oko sedamdeset utvrđenih mjesta. Mehmed II priključio je i Bosnu ostalim osvojenim krajevima. Otada se više ništa ne čuje o bogumilima. Misli se da su po turskom osvajanju u velikom broju prigrlili islam. Većina je katolika iselila u susjednu Austriju i Mađarsku, a za preostale se misli da su se mnogi od njih poveli za primjerom pređašnjih obraćenika. Neki su Evropljani pretpostavili da je mnogobrojno obraćenje bogumila u islam bilo u početku turskog osvajanja s tom namjerom da se povrate u svoju naročitu sektu, čim im se u budućnosti pruži prilika. Kao dokaz za ovu tvrdnju oni navode da su bogumili, zbog gore spomenutog stradanja i pritiska, našli zgodan put kako će namjerno zanijekati svoju staru vjeru (katoličanstvo), te budući da im se kasnije nije pružila očekivana prilika u povratak, to se napokon namjera njihovih pređa zaboravila. Obično je ovakva pretpostavka samo nagađanje, te se na nju, kao nepobitni dokaz, ne može osloniti. Mi smatramo jačim razlogom to što su bogumili pomiješani s muslimanima bili skloni islamu zbog mnogih tačaka u njihovom vjerovanju koje su slične islamskom učenju. Bogumili su odbacivali obožavanje Marije, ustanovu krštenja i sve vrste klera. Krst su, kao znamen vjere, mrzili. Smatrali su idolopoklonstvom upućivanje molitvi slikama i kipovima svetaca i relikvijama (moćima). Protivno katoličkim crkvama, koje su nedostojno ukrašene slikama, njihovi su hramovi bili skromni i jednostavni. Kao i muslimani, imali su hrđavo mišljenje o crkvenim zvonima, koja su nazivali "satanske trube". Vjerovali su da nije Isus lično razapet, nego da je to bio neki iluzorni lik, te su se u ovom pogledu djelomično slagali s Kur'anom (Njihova je tvrdnja: "Mi smo ubili Mesiju Isaa, sina Merjemina, Božjeg poslanika. Niti su ga ubili niti razapeli, nego im se tako pričinilo." - Sura IV, An Nisa', 157). Osuđivanje alkohola i sklonost asketskom životu i jednostavnosti spadaju u one sklonosti koje su poslužile zbližavanju bogumila s islamom. I oni su se pet puta dnevno molili. Često su puta padali na koljena i izražavali blagodarnost Bogu. Prema tome, za njihovo sudjelovanje pri molitvi u džamiji izgleda da nije trebalo velike preinake. Ovdje sam sakupio neke tačke koje su slične sa propisima islama, a koje se nalaze u šizmatičkoj sekti bogumila. Međutim, u bogumilskom vjerovanju ima i takvih tačaka koje sadrže formu kršćanskih propisa da ih pobožni muslimani ne mogu smatrati dostojnim za primanje. Dok su zajedničke tačke ovako nabrojene, može se zaključiti da su se uvjerili u potrebu postepenog napuštanja onih vjerovanja koje islam ne trpi. Njihovo vjerovanje, slično dualizmu manihejaca, nije se moglo izmiriti s vjerovanjem muslimana, ali je islam uvijek bio tolerantan (napisano 1913.!) prema ovakvim religioznim rasuđivanjima, samo pod tim uvjetom da ova svoja šizmatička naziranja ne izjavljuje. Turci, da omile svoju vjeru Bošnjacima, po svom poznatom običaju nagovarali su ih nuđenjem svih vrsta materijalnih i duhovnih probitaka. Svima onima koji su prigrlili islam osiguravali su vlasništvo svega njihovog posjeda, a spahije su bile oslobođene od poreza. Moguće je da su mnogi od islamiziranih pripadali plemstvu i bili lenski gospodari, te zbog svoje hereze prema katolicima bili prije lišeni tih prava. Napokon, uključivši se pobjedničkoj vjeri, uhvatili su priliku da povrate svoje vlasništvo. Bosanski su muslimani sačuvali svoju narodnost, te do dan-danas nosili prezimena kršćanska i govorili nacionalnim jezikom. Istovremeno su uvijek bili sa revnošću i oduševljenjem privrženi vjeri. Staro viteško držanje muslimana plemića, predana privrženost islamu, pored njihovog upliva i moći uvijek su na njih svraćali naročitu pažnju. Nekima su od njih povjeravana važna zvanična mjesta. Dapače, između 1544. i 1611. godine, zauzimala su devetorica od njih predsjedništvo vlade.

(T. W. Arnold: Povijest islama, Sarajevo 1989., str: 235-238.)

That's nice, but the book was published in 1896... Duja 10:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Noel Malcolm's and John Fine's view on Bosnian Church

I feel obligated to correct these serious mis-interpretations on Noel Malcolm and John Fine among some users at wikipedia. Non of these two object that the Bosnian church was predominantly bogomil, if you for example visit Malcolm's Bosnian institute you will see that he writes that: "the Bosnian Church (with its supposedly Bogomil beliefs)". Now I'm not especially good at English I guess, but I do know that the word "supposedly" implies "the most likely" so to speak. But I do on the other hand agree with the fact that there weren't many Bogomils (adherents of the bosnian church) left when the turks came, simply because they had been practicly forced to convert to Catholicism and in a much smaller extent orthodoxism. But we also know that these "bosnian catholics" in most cases remained true to the bogomil-bosnian tradition but "officially" changed to catholicism to avoid persecution - these bogomil bosnians - who officially recognized themselves as catholics - were the same who took Islam. So catholicism is a later part of bosnian history - bosnian church is earlier than that. First bosniaks were bogomils, then "catholics" and muslims in general. Damir Mišić

POV Tag

I've removed the POV tag. I'm sorry, but I honestly don't feel that one user pushing radical, unrecognised, fringe opinions into a perfectly fine article justifies a tag that implies the information in the article is significantly disputed - it's not. User Damir Mišić is the only one continously disputing and (I'd even say) disrupting the development of this article. Opposed to him are essentially all users who have been involved in this article over the past few weeks, including users Duja, Dado, Jadran, and others. His edits all substantially change the core information of the article to make it something completely different, and all his allegations and concerns have been thoroughly refuted on this talk page. His claims are ridiculous and should not be allowed to drag this article back. Live Forever 21:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Genetics=

As a genetic researcher I find the info added her on trivial and not realy scientific. There is no such thing and it would be wise not to alter history to fit political ammo.

5m figure?

I'm sorry if I seem a bit too inquisitive - that 5,000,000 Bosniak figure seems a bit too large. What are the sources for it? This is odd, as the figure on Croats has also jumped to 9,000,000... --PaxEquilibrium 22:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Map

The map is errorous. It shows a Bosniak major region on the south of Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium 21:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I see objection to what percisely is errorous - well, the fact that it shows a Bosniak-populated region at the south of Kosovo (when there is no such). --PaxEquilibrium 15:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

More issues

The article considers anyone who registers as "Muslim by nationality" or even "Bosnian" a Bosniak. If they wanted to be nationally known as Bosniaks, then they would've declared themselves as such. Would it be appropriate if we put on Croats article [+Bunjevci, +Shokci, +Krasovani, etc...] or on Serbs article [+Gorani, +Montenegrins, +Krashovans, or God forbid +Macedonians]? Also, who came up with the 100,000 elsewhere in the world fiugure? --PaxEquilibrium 20:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Last paragraph

There is a problem in this paragraph :

"It is believed that Bosniak identity was lost among these people due to Turkish assimilation laws in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Bosniak immigrants to Turkey were required to change their names to Turkish or Turkish sounding ones(under the Law on Family names). As a consequence of this, today some Turks do have somewhat Slavic sounding surnames. However some also have entirely Slavic surnames, the most common one probably being "Kiliç" spelled in Turkish as compared to the Bosnian version which is spelled "Kilić"."

"Kiliç" is a popular name in Turkey and it is Turkish. It means "sword" and does not have any linguistic relation with the Bosnian word "Kilić".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilic

Mesa Selimovic

Mesa Selimovic, was a muslim by religion, but by ethnicity he declared himself a SERB, AND NOT A Bosniak

Now Confused About Definition of Bosniak

After reading this article, I am confused about what 'Bosniak' entails... To be Bosniak:

• Must one have been born in Bosnia or is that not necessary?
• If not born there, is it one's close personal ties to Bosnia that makes one Bosniak?
• Must one be Muslim?
• Must one have ancestral Muslim/Arab/Turkish etc. roots?

Personally, I believed (not so sure anymore) that to be Bosniak one must (1) have close personal ties to Bosnia, (2) have Muslim/Arab/Turkish etc. roots, and (3) also practice Islam. If one does not practice Islam, but has close personal ties to Bosnia, they are Bosnian, not Bosniak. And also, since Bosniak entails an ethnic group, ethniciy is strongly dependent on ancestry. Therefore, one who has Serb, Croat, Italian, Spanish, etc. ancestry, but is Muslim, and feels a strong personal connection to Bosnia should not call themself Bosniak.

Am I right? Am I wrong? Correct me if I am. (Especially regarding the religion part). What are people's opinions? Any atheist/agnostic Bosniaks here who want to expand on their take on this? Stop The Lies 10:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

According to widely accepted modern treatment, a member of ethnic group X is anyone who feels like a member of ethnic group X. The unifying traits such as language, ancestry or religion are just guidelines and, except for few oddities (Jews e.g.) don't have a particular bearing. Duja► 08:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I would agree with you that a member of ethnic group X is anyone who feels like a member of ethnic group X, except ... the word 'ethnic' is there for a reason. Don't you think? I mean, to be part of an ethnic group implies that you have certain shared characteristics: race, religion, and whatnot.

And another thing, if we were to find out the demographics of a certain country, having to ask people which ethnic group they feel they are part of would be very time consuming, so many times this is done by assessing religion, ancestry, etc.

I'd like to say it's 'whatever one feels like' but it seems like some ethnic groups should have specific characteristics, especially in places such as ex-Yu, where the lines tend to get blurred, and it gets confusing and complicated... but then again, maybe we should start blurring the lines there more... it might lead to good things hehe

Stop The Lies 09:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Well here are answers to your questions: to be Bosniak you have to be of Slavic origin, to have personal historical ties to historical Bosnia (not current one because historical Bosnia included some other areas too, for example Sandžak), and to have personal historical ties to Islam (but not necessary to be believer since many Bosniaks are in fact atheists). PANONIAN (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good way to put it. Stop The Lies 20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Or - you could be simply a Moslem Serb/Croat (and have nothing to do with Bosnia). Such is the case with even the Father of the Bosniac nation, Alija Izetbegovic - he's family's from Belgrade and has nothing to do with Bosnia at all and he was a Muslim Serb (just like his family all the way from Ottoman ages). --PaxEquilibrium 17:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Bosniacs

Isn't Bosniac more correct than Bosniak - it is that way in all official records, including the English version of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. --PaxEquilibrium 19:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I will check this out, but so far most people use the term "Bosniaks" instead of "Bosniacs". I think it is Bosniaks. Pozdrav, Vseferović 06:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so this is what I found searching on-line:

• Dictionary.com
• Congress of North American Bosniaks
• Google thinks that it is wrong

Thanks, Vseferović 07:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we make a conclusion that Bosniac is the correct one, but Bosniak far more widespread, but generally incorrect one? We should make notion of it in this article. The Soviet Union has in the pretext its unofficial popular name (Russia). --PaxEquilibrium 20:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, we cannot. What is "correct" is determined largely by popular usage. —Psychonaut 22:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What? So if someone's called Thomas, but all call him Tommy, his real name should not be in the article??? --PaxEquilibrium 17:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no "real" or "correct" name in this case: only different forms of transliteration in English, one of which is far more common. English language doesn't have an Academy to regulate it. Duja► 17:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I would to ask what the single form of Bosniaks is in Bosnian. I need to translate this name using its sound. In Chinese (and Japanese, etc), singles and plurals are not denoted by something like adding an s in English, but rather using number words or whatever.--Fitzwilliam 12:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bоšnjak (IPA: ['bɔʃɲaːk]), roughly "bosh-nyak". Duja► 16:10, 23

January 2007 (UTC)

EGO

EGO Just draw parallel between Switzerland and Bosnia. There are no SWITZERIANS,there are French,German and Italian linguistic and ethnic groups. I understand that it is dificullt for muslims from Bosnia to admit their Serbian or Croatian background. They are like part of river cut from mainflow. But i advice all the people to read history and not pseudo-history. And it is sad that borders of today are not drawn neither historicaly neither by ethnicity. It is important to have in mind that Bysantian ruler-Konstantin the 7th named Bosnia(land around river of the same name) explicitly state of the Serbs. Name of the state could be taken from ethnical(Croatia,serbia,England) or geographical(Switzerland,Moldavia,Austria,BOSNIA) background. Those are the facts that are well known and not hidden in some pseudo-historical lectures. After all,we are all one people torn apart by religion(which wrote the most of the bloody and sad pages in worlds history. Zanimljivo je sto Hamburski Nijemac uopste nemoze da razumije Nijemca iz Bavarije ali ipak zive u istoj zemlji,imaju stardandizovan jezik i obojica kazu za sebe da su Nijemci.Svakoga ko moze procitat ovo ja smatram svojim bratom a za kraj parafraziracu Andrica:Tko ti iskopa oko?Brat.Zato je rana tako duboka i krvava.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Me%C5%A1a_Selimovi%C4%87"

Citation needed

Taken from the article:

Bosniaks belong linguistically to the wider Slavic ethnic group, but their genetic make-up is however more complicated than that. Bosniaks are mainly descendants of pre-Slavic indigenous Illyrian tribes and, to a significantly smaller extent, Slavs, Celts and Germanic tribes (Goths) who spanned the Balkans for distinct periods.

Sounds like original research/myth. Please provide a reliable source for that claim. Duja► 11:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Bosoni, the "silence" is not necessarily "sign of approval"; it can merely means that no one noticed it (which was the case here). The paragraph in question above was added by yourself on February 3, someone added {{fact}} and I felt compelled to move it here for citation per WP:CITE#Tagging unsourced material. There are several problems with it, namely:

• It hints at the popular myth that Bosniaks (largely) stem from Illyrians. Please refer to the former talk Talk:Bosniaks/Archive1#Recent Findings of the Origins of Bosniaks and even link to the Imamovic's article therein. The bottom line is: all the Balkan peoples are a mix of indigenous peoples and settlers, the genetic issue is moot, and similar conclusions be reached (or not reached) for all neighboring peoples. (See related Noel Malcolm's book which pertains more to Kosovo, but I don't see a reason why it should be much different elsewhere around).
• The "genetic evidence" presented here and in History of Bosniaks is inconclusive as well.
• How did suddenly Celts and Goths come into play? Evidence?

Duja► 10:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okey Duja let's go and visit the Origin of Serbs article and take a look at what it says. Dubble moral? I will erase some "facts" frome there and all by using your "reasons" Ancient Land of Bosoni

No objection from me. It's one of "dump all the myths and original research here" articles :-). Duja► 13:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Duja listen, why don't you allow me to write this text-piece (without a "cite") when you agree with the pretty much same statement in the serbian article (without a cite)? I'm starting to believe this is a missunderstanding. Ancient Land of Bosoni

Here goes a longish story: ideally, every statement in every article should be cited from a reliable source, preferrably using <ref></ref> tags. On one hand, it provides the proof that the editor did not make it up and thus provides a ground for the assertion. On the other hand, especially in the past, citing was far more sloppy (which I confess to have done myself). Of course, citing should not be overdone for trivial statements ("sky is blue"), summary sentences, as well as for non-controversial articles written from one or two sources (when it suffices to put the "References" section at the bottom). If you read any WP:FAC, you'll see what I mean.

Now, since obviously we're far from that ideal goal in many articles, marking the statements with {{fact}} mostly serves as the marker for controversial or doubtful statements. When the entire article is uncited, it normally suffices to put {{unreferenced}} at the top instead of spreading all over the article (like I just did on Origin of Serbs). In yet other cases, the lack of citation simply goes by, as no one seriously questions the validity of assertions in e.g. SpongeBob (although they should).

So, even if we kind of reached a compromise about the sentence, neither you nor I have proven that it were or weren't Illyrians or Goths involved. Since this article (among others) does cause a great deal of controversy, it should be cited far better.

As a counterexample, look at far more controversial Srebrenica massacre, where every citation was painstakingly analysed and put during the course of time. Or, look what I had to do at Fikret Abdić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) since Jan 29 to save it from deletion.

Of course, {{fact}} can be (ab)used with malice like much anything else. See WP:CITE#Tagging unsourced material for a guideline. Duja► 14:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Zlatan

Image of Zlatan Ibrahimovic duly removed from the article. What purpose does it serve, anyway, apart from being a POV-edit-war magnet? Is there an image of traditional costume, sevdalinka band or similar? Duja► 09:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak 07:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)== Musliman ==

I'd like to make small protest about a certain point made in the article. There are several points where it is implied that "Muslims" (Muslimani) and "Bosnians" (Bosanci) are Bosniaks who just haven't realized it yet. This smells of the same kind of nationalism used by other parties in the Balkans to claim that Bosniaks are converted Serbs and Croats. As a person from Sandzak, I can testify that many of my friends still living in Priboj, Novi Pazar etc. call themselves Muslimani or Sandzaklije. There are many cases of this, and many simply don't identify with the Bosniak nation! Muslimani were recognized as a constituant people of yugoslavia. Negating their existence has no place in an encyclopedia.

Example.

"However, some of them still identify themselves as "Muslims" or "Bosnians", according to latest estimates" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.229.211.59 (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Please be bold and fix the article if you feel things should be addressed. // Laughing Man 16:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. LaugingMan responds to this suspicious post 20 minutes after it was made... maybe a sockpupet? Different IP's? Who knows.