Talk:Bosnians/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Post-concensus discussion

This is still problematic :

The term Bosnians is, per modern-day usage, usually non-ethnic and in this specific context different from Bosniaks which is ethnic.

How specific is this (Wikipedia) context and in what other different situations Bosnians and Bosniaks are the same in a sense that they may exclude other Bosnians (Serbs, Croats, Jews, Romas etc.). Please explain and disambiguate.--Dado 21:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

there is no concensus Firstly, i disagree with this comparison of bosnians and equating it to Croatians and Serbians(srbijanci). Damir edited Croatians simply for the sake of is POV on Bosnians and Bosniaks

this is wishfull thinking by damir inorder to suggest there is a parrelel..however there is not

Croatians is just another way of refering to croats, and there is no parallel with bosnians, which has always been non ethnic, and simply a geographic term

Damir Bosnia and Herzegovina is a MULTI ETHNIC country and you are suggesting this just for arguments sake(i.e croatian=geographic croat=ethnic, bosnian=geographic bosniak=ehtnic) Bosnia and Herzegovian is a MULTI ETHNIC COUNTRY!

Croatians= ethnic Croat =ethnic

Srbijanci= is a one off in the serbian language and there is no comparison in any other language

Bosnian= geographic--Jadran 03:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't mix the notations from English and ours. While Serbians and Croatians are slightly stretched words, the respective articles do denote that they're inhabitants of Serbia and Croatia respectively, just like Bosnian denotes inhabitant of Bosnia. In ours, there's no word for "Croatians" (hrvaćani, ehm :-? ) while distinction Srbi/Srbijanci is fairly normal (see also similar disambiguation rus/rossiyanin which was recently coined in Russians). In other words: even if the words "Croatians" and "Serbians" are bit unusual, they do represent the terms in question (and, for one time, I agree with Damir's intervention in that article). Duja

13:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Duja Croatian does mean ethnic croat, which damir tried to deny, just see his versian in Croatians

he simply thinks croatians means geographic and non ehtnical while croat means ethnc, simply because in serbian language there is Srbijanic- geographic to the republic of serbia, and serbians/ srbi/ serbs= ethnic

its just a concidence that there is 2 words for the same thing in the croatian language croat=croatian

how would you explain for example : Greek? is it simply a word to describe ethnicity or geographic location?

Croatian does not necessarily mean ethnic Croat. It's ambiguous at best. It's not our fault that the English, as well as ours, in most cases do not clearly distinguish between "inhabitant of Foobaria" and "ethnic Foobar". Croatian, just like Hrvatski, can mean "of Croatia" or "of Croats". When applied as noun, though (which I said is rare and sounds clumsy), it denotes inhabitants. In most other cases, there's no distinction, just like "Greek" or "French". Disambiguation, if needed, can be clumsy, i.e. "of Greece" or "of Greeks" or "Greeks'".

What was the point about this semantic debate of ours, anyway? Duja 12:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Demographic images

Firstly, I don't think we should place a map of Bosnia in the beginning of the article. It looks not only ugly in format but also seems unessential to me.

Furthermore, the conflict in Bosnia has not officially been designated as a civil war, there is still a trial going on about that. So calling it an aggression is just as good as "civilwar", but just to avoid argument I wrote "war in Bosnia".

And as third, I extended the explainations around the demographics and included som historic references.

And at last, I do very well support the authentic charachter of the demographic illustration based on municipality data, but the one based on "settlement data" seems very suspicious. I have never heard of any record in Bosnia, or any other country, based on "settlement data"? And if it despite all is authentic, it should in that in that case also include small dots of, for example, gipsy settlements as well? Removed it for now, until some kind of sources are provided. Bosoni

Please, please, please do not start this edit war again... the article still sucks, but at least it was approximately stable for the last 2 months or so. Also, don't give original interpetations of images. --tjstrf 00:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that you replied on the discussion page, don't mind my revert comment then. This is no original research but general balkan knowledge, let the version be there for the other active users to see, after that we can compromise. Greetings! Bosoni

Well, if you read the talk page sections above, you'll see why I went revert-happy on you there: This article has been the subject of a nearly year long ongoing edit war, which recently died down, but which could probably flare up again at a moments notice. If you want to take on the task of getting your edit accepted, by all means do so, but don't say I didn't warn you. Discussing then adding would probably have been the best course of action here. I have no vested interest in either side of the issue here, but I do have an interest in keeping this page edit war free. I have read a couple books on the subject of Bosnian history as a result of the edit warring, but all that told me was that ethnic histories are often absurdly complicated. --tjstrf 00:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For Bosoni: since you say that "you have never heard of any record in Bosnia, or any other country, based on settlement data", see this: http://www.hdmagazine.com/bosnia/census/ This link provide census data for all settlements in Bosnia and the map you removed just reflect this. Second thing: check Vojvodina and Sandžak articles and you will see there both - ethnic maps based on municipal and on settlement data. So, the map should not be removed. Also, map of BIH should be at the beginning of the article because that is what can best describe term "Bosnians". Finally, this IS NOT an article about Bosnian war, thus, please write your view about war into Bosnian war article, not here. Thank you. PANONIAN (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Pannonian, I will not argue around the maps - they aren't that important. But why have you people made the intro so complicated? Is anyone, who is not well known with the subject, suppose to understand that intro? I re-wrote it and made it easy to understand. Bosoni

I did not wrote this article. I only wanted to post some images in it, so, it is nice that you did not removed Ivo Andrić. :) PANONIAN (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Move 'article Bosnians' to specific 'Bosanci' article

Bosniaks are mostly described either by the name of 'Bosnians' or 'Muslims' in English media. The term "Bosniaks" was also translated as 'Bosnier' in German language and as 'Bosnians' in English language until the unitary 'Bosanci' was created by Austria-Hungary. The name 'Bosanci' was then mostly translated as Bosnians, whereas the term 'Bosniaks' was introduced to a new translation and term: Bosniaks / Bosniaken(German). So to totally direct 'Bosnians' to a unitary nation created in the 19th century is wrong and subjective. This is so confusing, and a specific article about Bosanci needs to be written; like the one I wrote, where the term 'Bosanci' is used in its untranslated version to make understanding easier. 'Bosnians' have many meanings, one among them is 'Bosniaks' (considered as Bosnians per ethnicity) - whereas 'Bosanci' nowadays, is wrongly translated as Bosnians, making an ethnic term clash together with a regional one. Can't really blame the media for being the media, but it is necessary to make this clear to the readers, like I think I did in my version and disambiguation. Bosoni

And not to mention that the article in its present shape is awful, allow me to quote: "Serbian and Croatian emanicipation in Bosnia". What? So the bad guys are the Bosniaks who wouldn't let the serbs and croats free themselves from Bosnia? Another good one: "The aggressive efforts of some Bosniaks" - I will not even comment this one, allready many proffesors around here. Bosoni

My suggested article can be found under: Bosanci, if you disagree please give some reasonable reasons why. And not childish ones. Bosoni

And my suggested disambigution: Bosnians (disambiguation) Bosoni

We had discussed this issue in the past. The term Bosanci is correctly translated into Bosnians in english given that term Bosniaks is reserved for Bosnian Muslims in current constitutional arrangement. When one uses the term Bosnian in english it refers to all people coming from Bosnia and Herzegovina. To think that term Bosniak has a same meaning as Bosnian is merely wishfull thinking. Historically things are more confusing but the history section has attempted to make it a bit more clear.

The ethic card plays no part here. It is not true that the term only refers to Bosniaks but they are refered to as Bosnians in non-ethnic sense. Much of media makes these mistakes and your suggestion only adds to the confusion.

That's regarding the move. I will look into the content that to noted.--Dado 20:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition the nature of the name Bosanci, beside the fact that is not used in english language, will completely obscure the article and add bias to belief that Bosniak=Bosnian exclusevely.--Dado 20:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Dado, let me first ask you what is your agenda on this article? And to make things clear, Bosnian Croats and Serbs don't believe that they ever called themselves Bosniaks. Their true belief is that the people of Bosnia have been croat and serb since ever! And that Bosniaks are in fact "Muslim Croats/Serbs". Croats and Serbs deny a separate Bosnian ethnicity and considers Bosnia as a region of great Croatia/Serbia. To them 'Bosnian' is Croatian/Serbian regionality, to Bosnjaci 'Bosnians' means a separate ethnicity! And please to God don't make me have to explain right now what ethnicity means, Bosniaks embrace a Bosnian ethnicity, while Croats and Serbs reject it, to them it doesn't even exist. The name "Bosniaks" come from 'Bosnjani', the first mentioned people in Bosnia, who also developed something that at least resembles a separate Bosnian ethnicity. And I frankly think you are denying much of this Dado. Yes "Bosniaks" equals "Bosnians", 'Bosniak' means a person from Bosnia and so does 'Bosnian'. Bosniaks = Bosnians per ethnicity. "Bosanci" = unitary-citizenry 'Bosnians' identity Bosoni

Now to quote myself: "At the very beginning, 'Bosniaks' (In Bosnian: Bošnjaci, IPA: [bɔ'ʃɲaːt͡si]) were translated as Bosnier in written German language and as Bosnians, in English language. However, in connection to the new unitary-citizenry nation Bosanci, the "Bosnier/Bosnians" translation was largly rearranged to predominantly apply to 'Bosanci'. And the original "Bošnjaci", slowly began to be translated by new terms in English and German language; Bosniaks/Bosniaken. All of this was made to "neutralize" the ethnicity and emerging Muslim dominance in "Bosnians", so the population groups of Bosnia would be more easily incorporated into a unitary multi religious Bosnian nation." Please read and understand. Bosoni

This article denies, in its present version, Bosnian nationhood. If "Bosanci" (something created in the 19th century) translates "Bosnians", why are there then links to "Bosnians" in articles about the Middle Ages in Bosnia. So king Tvrtko Kotromanic was a Bosanac in the middle ages? He must have been before his time, wikipedia a place for experts I see. Bosoni

I personally do believe that there is a Bosnian nation in the way it is described in the article as probably a significant number of people in Bosnia do as well. However, some completely deny this and the article is a reflection of a compromise.

Now if you had any sense for history, sociology and anthropology you would probably not so arrogantly imply that your opinion is correct and what is presented in the article is wrong especially since you are not supporting your thoughts with verifyable or credible data. But lets take it in parts just to show you what are problems with your position:

"Bosnian Croats and Serbs don't believe that they ever called themselves Bosniaks. Their true belief is that the people of Bosnia have been croat and serb since ever!" Can you prove this vast generalization. Especially the second sentence knowing that Croat and Serb national movements began only about 100-150 years ago. Before that they largely considered themselves in the context of religion. I can ensure you that if you search in history you will find evidence cotrary to this position.

"And that Bosniaks are in fact "Muslim Croats/Serbs". There is a very marginal nationalist fringe among Serbs and Croats that actually finds these credible.

"Bosniaks" come from 'Bosnjani'," True. However it is unclear if the name had the same conotations and meanings as it does today. Again because a concept of a nationhood did not exist at the time as it exists today. You canot simplistically translate a word while disregarding the the inherent meanings those words have in their own historical contexts.

"Bosanci" = unitary-citizenry 'Bosnians' identity." This is wrong on so many levels beginning with the grammatical. The explaination means nothing. Just 3 fancy words put together. Could you clarify your thoughts.

"why are there then links to "Bosnians" in articles about the Middle Ages in Bosnia. So king Tvrtko Kotromanic was a Bosanac in the middle ages? " Excuse me but where in the article is this mentioned. The history section starts back 100 years. I have not worked on other articles to answer you why and that has nothing to do with this article.--Dado 21:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How...

...poorly written this article is. Someone should assess it. Firstly, it mentions a fictious 1947 constitutional framework of Yugoslavia and notifies that the Bosniak name was (re)introduced in 1990... Not to mention the other facts...--147.91.8.64 13:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Originally Bosnian was an Adjective! Today is is becoming a Noun!

Bosnian(Bosanac) technically means "inhabitant of the province of Bosnia" regardless of ethnicity.

Since the Creation of the modern state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, English speaking countries have used the word Bosnian(Bosanac) to refer to ALL the inhabitants of the ENTIRE Bosnia and Herzegovina

This is incorect, as to refer to the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, one should naturally use both parts of the name i.e Bosnian-Herzegovinian

The confusion with the usuage of the adjective Bosnian, all stems from the english referal to the consitutive nation Muslimani(Muslim as a nation){not to be confused with adherants of islam:i.e muslimani[muslims]) of Bosnia and Herzegovina as:

"Bosnian Muslims"

Firstly as you can see, the mistake was made by refering to Muslimani(Muslim nation) of Bosnia and Herzegovina as "Bosnian"(province of Bosnia) and applying it to the whole country of Bosnia and Herzegovina i.e it should have been "Bosnian-Herzegovinian Muslims" rather than Bosnian Muslims.

The same can be said with the other two constituent Nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Croats and Serbs. Englsih speaking countries destroyed the concept of the adjective Bosnian (originally to be solely applied to the province Bosnia) and now applying it to the inhabitants of the whole country of Bosnia and Herzegovina i.e Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats instead of with the prefix "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" .

HOWEVER the issue really begins to develop when the name change of the nation Muslimani(Muslims) of Bosnia and Herzegovina changed there name to Bosniak, which predictably, as with all things in the balkans meant trouble.

The interesting thing is Bosniak(Bosnjak) actually also means(MEANT emphasis intended) Bosnian(Bosanac), (but came out of use in favour of the later) and as with the old rule above, was Originaly intended to SOLELY be applied as a geographic adjective to describe an inhabitant of the province or Sandzak Bosnia ie a Bosniak or (Bosnjak) and as per usual-> regardless of ethnicity.

So today Bosniak has 2 meanings: Bosniak(Bosnjak): a Nation(formally known as Muslims)

and

Bosniak Bosnjak) which also means Bosnian(Bosnanac)i.e an inhabitant of the province Bosnia(regardless of ethnicity).

It is also ironic that term Bosniak which at the time of its more popular use(Ottoman times), had been exclusivly applied to the Christian poulation of the province of Bosnia(ie Serbs and Croats) as a geographic designation of the Sanjak Bosnia!

While Modern Day Bosniaks(Bosniak Nation)(ie Muslims Nation),who are decendants of Slavic converts to Islam (could be Croats or Serbs or as Bosniaks claim neither and just simply Slavs), DID NOT use the term Bosniak to refer to themselves as a NATION, but identified with the ruling class(Muslim Ottomans) and viewed themselves as Turks. Bosniaks referred to themselves as "Turci" (more commonly: "Turčini").

Now Bosniaks, who unfairly chose the name Bosniak as the name for their nation,

UNFAIRLY* as it also belonged EQUALLY to Croats and Serbs of Bosnia(maybe even more so, as it was only applied to CHRISTIANS).

To add to that, the Bosniaks are using the Both Terms Bosnian and Bosniak collectivily, and selectivitly applying its OLD definition.

WHY?

Inorder to monopolize the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina

HOW?

By suggesting/alluding that Bosnian(Bosanac) = Bosniak(Bosnjak)

And you may be thinking now, "didnt you previously say that Bosniak means Bosnian?"

And yes it does!

Bosnian truelly does mean Bosniak.

HOWEVER! Bosniak now refers to the nation Formally know as Muslimani(Muslims) and NOT what it previously meant,

i.e. Solely as a Geographic designation,to refer to the inhabitants of the province or at that time, the Sandzak of Bosnia.Most importantly, it was irrespective of ethnicity.

If this naive use of the words Bosnian and Bosniak is alloud to continue, then there goes the entire Serbian and Croatian Cultural Heritage and History of Bosnia and Herzegovina into a GREATER (artificial) "BOSNIAN NATION"

This monopolization must be stopped! --Jadran 05:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Time to Move On

I am lightly aquainted with this issue and culture and don't feel the article is terribly biased. I believe people in Bosnia can refer to themselves as "Serb" or "Croat" without the prefix Bosnian. This doesn't necessarily imply ethnic nationalism. Someone can take umbrage with the appellation "American Jew" while being entirely patriotic to America. Similarly, an ethnic Serb or Croat might not like the term "Bosnian Serb" or "Bosnian Croat" without being disloyal to the Bosnian nation -though nationalist sentiments and goals are very strong if not predominant in their communities and drive this distate for the term "Bosnian." Yet an internationally recognized country called Bosnia and Hercegovina exists, perhaps "Citizen of Bosnia" should be used to describe its citizens as the term "bosnian" has become so loaded with ethnic meaning. If people reject being classified as a citizen of Bosnia then that is a problem. Before the conflict many people primarily identified themselves as Yugoslavs. There needs to be a new term invented to describe citizens of this country which is ethnically neutral. That would be quite a trick indeed, but seems the only way to get past all this petty linguistic squabble.70.90.38.170 10:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Markemory 06:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that many people in former Yugoslavia confound NATION with RELIGION. Outside South-western Balkans, in most of Europe and Western World, nation and country generally equals to the modern nation-states. And nowadays most of the Western countries are, in a manner or another, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious and even multi-sexual.

To call “Bosnian” a person that independning of its religious affiliation was born and lives in Bosnia is not a offence. It’s a fact.

And, in my opinion, the conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina are not about real “ethnicity” — the immense majority has the same color, lived in the same cities, and speaks the same language (wheter other “language nationalists” like it or not). It’s the same people that even intermarried before the wars. The conflict in Bosnia is not about ethnicities or nations — it’s all about religious hatred and politicians who wanted to manipulate it (Milosevic and Tudjman) to achieve their goals (Greater Serbia or Greater Croatia).--MaGioZal 21:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

hear hear !Hxseek 03:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

PC makes article unreadable

Political correctness makes this article completely unreadable, worse, ununderstandable. Ehtnicity based on genetics and culture should be implicit, not tip toed around. From this article i fully understand Serbians and Croats are ethnically different, but that's it. Are Bosnians mere citizens of BH? With Bosniaks being Bosnians who, mostly, tend to be muslim? These Bosnians would thus be an ethnic, cultural, entitity that precedeed the ottoman invasions?

Next thing you konw a Jamaican moves to Bosnia and he's a Jamaicquiak. Honestly, the PC BS is making these articles unreadable. Please be race, genetic, cultural, historically implicit, obvious, and heaven forfend - actually informative for a change. Ultron 20:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Accept the facts and move on

The term "Bosnian" simply refers to those natives of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Muslim-Bosniak, Croat and Serb) who identify with the Bosnian region and consider it their homeland, much like the Bošnjani of medieval days. Even the more nationalist individuals among us will concede that the constitutive nations of modern BiH share a common, interwoven history, and any attempt to understand the so-called "Bosnian phenomenon" requires understanding Bosniak (read: Slavic Muslim) as well as Croatian and Serbian history.

Bosnian Croats and Serbs are just as native to the Bosnian region as the Muslim Bosniaks. Whether you believe that they originally belonged to some third "Bosniak" nation and later began to call themselves Croats and Serbs, or that they merely completed a long process of national re-awakening is up to you. No matter what some Bosniaks think, Bosnia is currently not "their" nation-state, but a country composed of several nations. Its very future depends on those three nations cooperating, and these attempts at monopolizing Bosnian history on any side (whether Bosniak, Croat or Serbian) only aggravate the problem. Accept these facts, learn to share a country and move on. Ivan Ilir

The fact is that religious hatred is the sad thing behind most of the recent Bosnian conflicts. And there is no “nations” in the Bosnian-Herzegovinan nation, but people. And people should be put above “nations” and religions.--MaGioZal 14:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that cannot be done. Islam states that Islam should be put above all else. This is how a 3rd "ethnicity" developed in Bosnia, otherwise Bosnia would only have Serbs and Croats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 05:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

See Nation.

'The term nation is often used as a synonym for ethnic group (sometimes "ethnos"), but although ethnicity is now one of the most important aspects of cultural or social identity, people with the same ethnic origin may live in different nation-states and be treated as members of separate nations for that reason. National identity is often disputed, down to the level of the individual.

So it is correct. --PaxEquilibrium 16:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity is now one of the most important aspects of cultural or social identity. That’s a very relative thing. Mainly in the Balkans, where religion and ethnicity are confounded and are very different from the Western concepts. An Italian is an ethnic Italian even if he or she is not Catholic, for example.--MaGioZal 13:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

An exception in the Balkans is Greece, however. --PaxEquilibrium 15:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

New "nationality" template added

While I certainly wouldn't call it an "ethnicity", Bosnianhood certainly merits its own nationality template. I cannot bear to see Bosnia's rich ethnocultural and confessional heritage, let alone its tremendous contribution to the arts, sciences, popular culture, sports, etc., go unrecognized on account of petty national ideologues and similar agitators. On this template, I've included all the prominent Bosnian and Herzegovinian historical (and contemporary) figures who have, since the Bosnian state first emerged centuries ago, forged a common Bosnian identity and culture that supersedes race, ethnicity, creed, religion, and so forth.

Bosnia-Herzegovina is a crossroads of civilizations and ideas; from Latin Catholic to Slavic (and more significantly, Byzantine) Orthodox Christendom to the Ottoman Islamic world, and similarly a bridge between Western and Eastern Europe, as well as the Middle East and Asia. Respect it as such, and honor my wishes to use this template. Ivan Ilir 08:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sephardic Jews also count

Sephardic Jews are also a key component of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian ethno-cultural and confessional framework. Therefore, I've included them on the nationality template, along with the Ladino language they speak. Please do not revert.--Ivan Ilir 19:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian identity

While i found this article interesting, I suspect it is a little flawed.

It does not go into the Origins of Bosnian people.

Dare I say it, but most historians agree that Bosnians were merely Serbs (and i'm not using this in ANYWAY to justify any Serb pretensions in Bosnia)

The Serbs arrived in the Balkans in 7th and 8th centuries AD. (or 'invited' by the Byzantine emporer). The settled in the regions of modern day Bosnia, Serbia and Montenegro. It was not unified, and had many small kingdoms vying for power (eg Raska, Zeta). A unified state did not form until 10th century.

Gradually the Serbs in the region if what is now Bosnia became more and more independent from the Kings. Power was held by local 'Bans' (noblemen).

The people of Bosnia never had a powerful church. The Bosnian church was poorly influential, often accused to be a heretic branch by both Rome and Byzantium. For the people in the Balkans, self-identity was tied in very closely with Church life.

Because the church was less developed in Bosnia compared to Catholic croatia or orthodox Serbia, the Bosnian people converted to Islam en masse when the Turkish empire invaded. Whereas Serbs and croats remained christian despite oppression and atrocities committed by the Turks

This was THE key step in creating a Bosnian 'self-identity'. This created a very unique situation where Europeans are practising Islam. As with any Islamic peoples, they owe their loyalty first of all to Islam above any thing else.

They often took on Turkish first names, while keeping Slavic surnames. It is very interesting to come accross names like Osman Kadic, eg.

This is what defines a Bosnian: their Islamic way of life. 123.243.241.235 01:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I reccomend the book by Dennis Hupchik : The Balkans : from Constantinople to Communism. Very good read and unbiased. (he is an American history professor)

You seem to confuse "Bosnian" with "Bosniak" here. A Bosnian is simply anyone originating from Bosnia-Herzegovina. A Bosniak is a descendant of Slavic converts to Islam, mostly from Bosnia (but also Sandzak and other areas). It's a common mistake, although I really wish it wouldn't happen so often.--Ivan Ilir 08:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your right. I meant Bosniaks.

If you meant Bosniaks, then you should direct your entire argument to the Wikipedia article on Bosniaks. This article is about the multinational community of Bosnia, not a specific ethno-religious community.--Ivan Ilir 08:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually i was trying to larify some of the arguements on this forum. Hxseek 02:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging

Mystics bogumils/PaysBassos, please:

Stop changing the usernames; please take one account and stick to it. WP:SOCK policy strongly discourages usage of such , up to the blocking as an extreme measure
Can we peacefully agree to stick to one article, rather than creating POV forks of existing ones? All of the material from Ethnic Bosnians page is taken from articles Bosnians and Bosniaks. The sole difference is the official census in Slovenia, where "Bosnians" exists along with "Yugoslav" as a census category, under "Undeclared".
No one denies that there are people who primarily identify as "Bosnians" in censa, and even primarily in private life. We can probably find similar category in other censuses. We should publish that information. What we shouldn't do is to create articles such as this, where the practically only source is the Slovenian census. Apart from that, we can only guess who are such people, what is their religion, history, and symbols, whether they identify with the old medieval flag of Bosnia and so on. Do they state that their language is Bosnian or perhaps Serbo-Croatian? That is original research. Even the title "ethnic Bosnian" is an original research: while "Bosnian" is certainly a legitimate self-identification, there's no evidence that they constitute an ethnic group.
In good faith, I added the real results of that research, and similar sources can be also found elsewhere.

In sum, there are three largely overlapping articles on the same subject:

I suggest that we take and consolidate this material under whatever name, or clearly separate the topics. I propose "Ethnic and national identity in Bosnia and Herzegovina", but I'm open to suggestion. This is a worthwhile and interesting topic, but we should really stick to describing all aspects of it under one place, in a NPOV manner. Duja► 11:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a merge is a good solution. Ethnic Bosnians article is obviously an original research and should either be deleted or redirected. Ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina is a separate subject and I would refrain from complicating what seams to be an efficient and informative article about a relatively known subject of Bosnian identity or Bosnians. --Dado 02:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

New movement of ethnogenesis.

"An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, either on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry[1], or recognition by others as a distinct group[2], or by common cultural, linguistic, religious, or territorial traits.[1] "

Ethnic Hungarians and national Hungarians exist, there is difference, as well with Germans.. national Bosnians or people with Bosnian background (especially kids fro mixed mariagge) can declare as ethnic Bosnians if they want..

Maybe "ethnic Bosnians" should wait Bosnian census to became reality on Wikipedia?—Preceding unsigned comment added by PaysBassos (talk • contribs)

Who is denying that they're reality? However, I hope we can agree that "Bosnian" as a census category is relatively new. We do have Yugoslavs article; however, it is at least based on census results. What we have on Bosnians as census category is new, and mostly unknown. I will agree with you that those are mostly mixed-marriage children, or people of Muslim ancestry who strongly identify with Bosnia, or... That's what common sense says. But we don't have any data. We have 288 Google hits on the phrase "ethnic Bosnians", a few of which are devoted to Slovenian census, and most others actually refer to Bosniaks. Here's a quote from [1]

This sense of unity eventually turned out to be the most fragile of the building blocks, and the boundaries of the Republic of "Bosnia-Hercegovina proved to be the most imperfectly drawn. There were in fact no ethnic "Bosnians;" Bosnians were Serbs and Croats, Muslims and Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics. The capital of the Bosnian republic, Sarajevo, was a spicy stew whose flavors blended together: a mosque in one square, an Orthodox church in the next.

I don't have any problem with describing the new phenomenon. One problem, though, is that we know little about it, and that the said "ethnic group" lacks any coherence, organizations, etc. I don't see how much could be said about it except the fact that some people prefer such designation in censa. However, like I tried to say above, material in the two existing articles is hopelessly apples and oranges: one possibility is to focus the Bosnians article to the "ethnic Bosnians" and put the remaining material into Ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina (under new name?). But in the meanwhile, until the matter is settled, please stop propagating the "ethnic group" concept for which the only proof of existence is one census. They certainly fail the "widespread recognition by others as a distinct group" test -- while it's certainly their human right to declare as such. Even the Yugoslavs article starts with "an ethnic wikt:designation" rather than "ethnic group". Duja► 12:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bosnians and Nazism

I am dumbfounded that this comment has not been deleted yet but admins and user banned for life. Seek help --Dado 01:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We're not omnipotent, y'know, and there's always WP:AIV and WP:AN. I already had deleted this comment once, but he reinstated it on Sep 22. Blocked for a while, we don't block IPs indefinitely in general. Duja► 11:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I was not sure where to report this or if I am allowed to remove it myself. Thanks for deleting it after all --Dado 02:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Couple of edits

In the history section , i do not see why Serbs and Croats cannot be explicitly mentioned that they settled what is now Bosnia. This is undoubtable historic fact. I know Bosnia may have developed somewhat of an autonomous identity in the medieval ages, but the Serb and Croat tribes (in the sense of proto-Serbs and Croats) were, in fact, the main colonisers of the area. We should not cut out fact to be "PC" or to appease nationalists.

Secondly, there was a subtle error about religion, also in the history section. It states with the growth of medieval Bosnian Kingdom (ie expansion into Serbi and Croatia proper), Orthodox and Catholic populations came to lie within Bosnia. The way it read, i beleive was subtely biased, as if to paint a picture that Bosnia was preveiously homogenous in its adherence to Bosnian church branch of Christianity. This is incorrect. THe early rulers from the 11th century converted to Catholicism from Orthodoxy to appease Hungary and Western powers. Many other nobles also converted, whilst other remained Orthodox. Many followed the local sect, including some of the rulers (secretly). Thus from the near inception of Bosnian statehood, religious particularism was a feature. Cheers Hxseek (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A section

'A common anthropological trait present among many Bosnians that resulted from influence of religion on history in Bosnia and Herzegovina and which was continually evident among some Bosnians even today is also a preference for mythological method of knowledge transfer. Knowledge transfer was very much dependent on oral tradition given that early Bosnian Church was not well organised, and even where it was, there were not many written testaments left to the posterity to learn from. As a result collective memory of many historical events among Bosnians in absence of factual information have become the “facts” of collective memory which are not always in line with historical facts.'

This is in no way proven, sourced or even illustrated with examples in the article, so until someone can come up with a proof of this, I am removing it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwanaunsignedhype (talk • contribs) 15:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

When foriegners define who I am - written by a member of Bosnianherzegovinian Nation and bosnianherzegovinian people

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am native Bosnian as well as my ancestors. Bosnians could be of any religion. Even atheists!

You people don't know the difference between religion and NATION!!!

Serbs are members of Serbian people and Serbian Nation, Serbian Nation is called Serbia.

Croats are members of Croatian people and Croatian Nation, Croatian nation is called Croatia!

Bosnians are members of Bosnianherzegovinian people and Bosnianherzegovinian Nation, Bosnian-herzegovinian Nation is called Bosnia! ( PLEASE PROVIDE THIS DEFINITION TO THE PAGE, THANK YOU ) Please learn definitions! And think of Bosnia as Republic, forget Dayton PEACE AGREEMENT who gave constitutional right to occupators (Serbs, Croats) and invented Bosniak term for the purpose of division and to join a peace of Bosnian cake to their homelands. This is temoporarily, and of course it was against will of Bosnian People so it's also unconstitutional.

Bosnian Nation would never give constitutional rights to Serbs and Croats and invent Bosniak term, it was not necessary as Bosnians are members of all religions.

This page is about Bosnians not about Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks.

Bosanac--71.194.34.77 (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, 99.9% Croats and Serbs in B&H would never call their nationality/ethnicity "Bosnian". Today, Bosnian is only functional as regional appellative, not ethnical/national. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is about Bosnians, ( not Serbs, Croats and/or Bosniaks ) and if you are not happy about it too bad for you! Signature: Bosnian 100% --24.192.84.226 (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a Bosnian. If you live in Bosnia, you should know it a country with 3 seperate people/ ethnicitties/cultures (serbs/ croats/slavic muslims who call themselves "Bosniaks"). Maybe one day, they might merge into one people, but that is far from the case now. Hxseek (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am NOT Slavic yet I am Bosnian, so why my people are not listed?

The page states this: quote "Bosnians are Slavic people who reside in, or come from, Bosnia".

Fallacies:

1. Bosnians are not just South Slavs, but also Kurds, Jews, Illyrians, Romanies, Latins, Arabs ( all major ones not listed ) 2. Bosnians are not just those who reside or come from Bosnia.

For instance:

1. I am Bosnian and I am not Slavic, I am in fact Bosnian of Germanic background. Germanic people are not listed.

2. I also do not reside in Bosnia. The choice of my residence does not make me Chinese.

Does not this show so clearly that page is not providing the facts...and whoever is in charge is for some reason simply refusing to acknowledge so. --24.192.84.226 (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Overwhelming majority (>99%) of Bosnians (in a regional sense) are Slavs that speak Slavic and affiliate themselves with Slavic culture. These Kurds, Arabs, Jews, "Illyrians" (huh?) are just an insigificant minority that hardly deserve mentioning. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So then Germans aren't Germanic ? Hxseek (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Bosnians are anything but Slavs: (75% Illyrian-Teuton-Celtic (http://www.bosniafacts.info/web/genetic_makeup_of_the_balkans.php) When will you "Wikipedians" learn to respect reason and logics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.199.140.178 (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Idiot. No idea what you are talking about Hxseek (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

iGENEA is hardly a reliable source. --|★|BignBad|★| 05:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BignBad (talk • contribs)

OP -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-Bosniaks are missing

Maybe it would be best to avoid images of famous people altogether, but this is not right as it is now, and putting Izebegovic on this page certainly is not the right choice... Andric is missing, any non-Bosniak politicians also. If you have a picture of "Merlin" you also need one of Bregovic in the list, etc. Seriously.

Well, it is a page about Bosnians, not the ethnic group within them, which all, if they have our citizenship, are part Bosnians. Up to 75% people consider them, aside of being one of the ethnic group also as Bosnian, many only Bosnians. Many people I know who are catholic faith (which in many cases would be considered Croat) or orthodox (which would in most cases result for you being a Serb) don't want to correlate to an ethnic group, because they just don't feel that they are Serbs, Croats or Montenegrians, they feel as Bosnians with that religion. AnelZukic (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that we remove the third row so nobody is offended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.106.15 (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Whats with the numbers

Whats happening with the numbers there are only about 3 million Bosniaks not 8 million... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.73.143 (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This page is about Bosnians, not Bosniaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gradanin (talk • contribs) 03:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)