Talk:Bosniaks

Archives /Archive1: - June 2006 /Archive 2 - October 2007 (primarily) /Archive 3 - September 2009

"Turks"

paragraphs #1 and #2

“ In older literature (for example, in Ivo Andrić's opus The Bridge on the Drina) the Bosniaks have been called Turks, in view of their high standing vis-a-vis the Serbs and Croats of Bosnia during Ottoman rule, and this name had no particular negative connotation. Today, a hundred years after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, to call Bosniaks by this name is generally considered as something vulgar .Still, however, in certain occasions Bosniak do identify themselves as “Turks”.During the football match Croatia-Turkey at EURO 2008 IN Many cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosniaks were using Turkish flag and yelling “Ovo je Turska!” (“This is Turkey! “). During his meeting with Turkish prime minister Mustafa Cerić ,the religious leader of Bsnian muslims, has made a statement : “Say to the Turkish people :Turkey is our Mother. That how it was always, and it will remain like that. ”

“ Many cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina with Bosniak ethnic majority are named after ottoman leaders.I.e. After Mehmed-paša Sokolović was named street in downtown of Sarajevo.("ulica Mehmed-paše Sokolovića").In town of Bihać there is a street named after Suleiman the Magnificent.("Ulica Sulejmana Veličanstvenog") . ”

Response: The question of Bosniak paternal lineages should by now really be settled by means of the Y-STR analysis. About 50% of Bosniaks belong to the European (it does not occur anywhere else in the world!) I haplogroup (I1b and I1a combined). It is more than for example Norwegians (!!!). It only shows that the people who claimed Turkish descent of Bosniaks (or muslim Bosnians, or "Bosnian Muslims") were in fact spreading malicious propaganda, nothing else. The same analysis in southern Serbia, for instance, shows non-European descent.

E3b1 12.9 I1a 4.7 I1b 43.5 R1a1 15.3 R1b 3.5 J1 2.4 J2 9.5 other 8.2

Source:

D. Marjanovic, S. Fornarino, S. Montagna, D. Primorac, R. Hadziselimovic, S. Vidovic, N. Pojskic, V. Battaglia, A. Achilli, K. Drobnic, S. Andjelinovic, A. Torroni, A. S. Santachiara-Benerecetti, O. Semino, "The Peopling of Modern Bosnia-Herzegovina: Y-chromosome Haplogroups in the Three Main Ethnic Groups", Annals of Human Genetic, 2005, p. 757-763

Also, if in doubt, you can refer to the following for maps of the whole region:

M. Pericic, L. B. Lauc, I. M. Klaric, S. Rootsi, B. Janicijevic, I. Rudan,R. Terzic, I. Colak, A. Kvesic, D. Popovic, A. Sijacki, I. Behluli, D. Dordevic, L. Efremovska, D. D. Bajec, B. D. Stefanovic, R. Villems, and P. Rudan. "High-resolution phylogenetic analysis of southeastern europe traces major episodes of paternal gene flow among slavic populations", Mol Biol Evol, 22(10):1964–1975, October 2005.

J2 can be ascribed to Anatolians but also, for example, to groups such as Sephardic Jews, and it is not overrepresented when compared to other European populations. E3b1 occurs thoughout Balkans, and is actually higher in Serbs. If you care about "Other" which amounts to 8 % check the article, there is nothing significant there except that K is exteremly low, excluding the possibility of Asian P, Q, O, L etc. haplotypes.

Also, do not delete this again claming I am nationalistic, and then repost your nonsense again later. BTW, if you do not understand what the data above means, let me explain it to you: Turkey might be our "mother", but the Turks *certainly* are not our fathers, or grand-fathers, or grand-grandfathers, or male ancestors in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.98.64 (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

reflist

(references 3. and on)

Discussion

PRODUCER, please outline your main objections to these two paragraphs, and to their sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Ivan said it best. This whole edit started out as an attempt to get back at me after I began editing Karađorđevo agreement. It should be mentioned in a sentence in the history section but certainly not have an entire section with provocative derogatory tones devoted to it. The sources should be backed up with more encyclopedic ones not house listings [1]. lol PRODUCER (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, no special section. How would you phrase the paragraph for the History section? (I'm trying to see what you mind the most, so how would you phrase it while keeping the bare facts intact?) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This following Aradic-es around and cleaning up his mess has gone too far. It should be the job of Aradic-es to propose a well sourced neutral addition on the talk page and for other editors to agree/disagree, or suggest minor edits to his addition before inclusion. I personally think Aradic-es deserves a ban from editing this article. Particularly as his only addition seems to have been an attempt to annoy Bosniaks. However, if you wish to rewrite his additions then go ahead. I personally don't want to start editing articles on other peoples ethnicities. Polargeo (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you put it that way... :) Yeah I thought this might be the way things are perceived. No it just looks that way because the guy is blocked and I'm the only one talking to PRODUCER, its an unusual position for a would-be mediator if he can only properly discuss with one side. It is "Aradic's job", I agree, but from what I can see this addition isn't inherently biased. It sort of provides relatively NPOV information on the connections between Bosniaks and Turks. I'm frankly not very well knowledgeable in the Bosniak/Croat ethnic conflict, i.e. I don't know how Bosniaks stand on this. This is why I'm asking PRODUCER to clarify his objections to the text. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay I will add in my thoughts then. The bit about street names conferring ethnic identity is totally ridiculous, in Britain we have roads named after every group who conquered Britain. The Romans, Vikings, Celts, Normans. Therefore the stuff on street names is rubbish, even if it was mentioned in a newspaper which I cannot tell because I can't read the language. The provocative chants of some football hooligans is unrepresentative and a bit insulting to put on the main page about an ethnicity, I suggest this article is not the place for it. Imagine me posting on the Croat page "Many Croats identify themselves with Ustaše and want an ethnically pure Croatia, here are lots of football chants that verify it". I guarantee my edit would be removed instantly (shall I try it?). Maybe some of the other bits of the addition could stay, but as Ivan said above without the "implied mockery" added in by Aradic-es. It is this mockery that makes me think his addition was inflamatory and not worthy of our time except on the revert button. Polargeo (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

LoL, nice suggestion, I certainly think you'd be correct :P. However, you're equating Ustaše with Turks(!), which is just a bit inappropriate :). The fact is that, as far as I know, Bosniaks do not mind being associated with Turks and Turkish culture. (Naturally the streets bit is o.u.t., no question.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, it is obvious that there is identification, but football chants are surely not a reliable measure, particularly for a page on an ethnicity, I'd hate to be measured on this myself. Anyway I am no judge so I'll leave this and go for a Bosnian or Turkish coffee, I haven't decided yet :). Polargeo (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be wary of making sweeping generalizations, Polargeo. Street names might not mean much, but when a country, or portion of it, actively promulgate cultural links, not only at a "mob" level, but at a governmental one, then it is significant and noteworthy. Certainly, it should be clarified that it might not necessarily represent the general Bosnian Muslim population. As a post-thought, why shouldn't football chants be included ? Afterall, this would represent the how the 'average' Bosnian Muslim youth identify themselves. Afterall, what is most important is how a population sees itself. One could argue that this is more important than the most scholarly thesis on the ethnogenesis of Bosnian Muslims Hxseek (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay Hxseek sorry about the generalisations but football chants cannot be used in the way they were being used. In this case they were being far more broadly interpreted on a page about an ethnicity than the source allows. What is needed are better more balanced sources that may put these chants into context. We should not decide on the context or what football chants mean in terms of ethnic identity on wikipedia or else that is original research by WP:Synthesis. In fact that was the main problem of the addition by Aradic-es. Put a load of stuff about street signs and football chants together and you have original research by synthesis. He may be correct but there isn't the place for rubbish additions like that here and it should not be the job of other editors to follow about tidying this sort of stuff up. Polargeo (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

My response

OK, let us see some bare facts:

• Did Mustafa Cerić said „ Turkey is our mother“-YES.I gave the source for that. I did not (and I bold this) call him or anybody else to be „Turk“
• Were Bosniak fans (or to be more precise hooligans) yelling „this is Turkey!“ and they were not in Turkey but in Bosnia and herzegovina -YES.I gave the source for that,too.
• Are streets in Bosniak majority named after Ottoman leaders- YES.I gave the source for that.

For Sarajevo [2] [3]

two independent sources (from Bosnia and herzegovina) are more that enough. For Bihać is source Local police website (Una-Sana canton police department) [4] Other source (Oslobođenje , Sarajevo-X etc.) are Bosniak press and portals... Producer has certain problem:he believes that he has monopoly on a truth. Therefore he has right to delete everything he dislikes . Even sourced ones and even from the talk pages-by which right???

Just for the illustration: He included rumours about Mate Boban [5] , he included the paragraph about Croatian propaganda [6] , but he persistently removes the very well sourced parts about Bosniak propaganda: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

„removing idiotic nationalist propaganda“ is his (very civil!! ) edit summary

A statement that I delete all negative from articles about Croatian politician is a blatant LIE as well as his fake google results about Karađorđevo meeting.[12] There are lot of bad things written about these leaders which I did not even try to delete-Everybody who can read English can see it.

@DIREKTOR: that story about ustaše reminds me on a certain anegdote from the period of NDH:

• Ante Pavelić has a meeting of his cabinet and has a speech
• Pavelić:Bosnian Muslims are the flower of Croatian people !(his famous sentence)
• Some minister:Yes, indeed, they are : Sunflower --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Identification of Bosniaks

Members of some ethnic group can often identify themselves with another ethnic group(s) although sometimes have nothing or very little in common. Therefore:

• Germans do identify themselves with Scandinavians-although they are genetically only 6% Germanic and 45% Celtic and 30% Baltic and/or Slavic (according to Swiss institute for genetics,Igenea )[13])
• Spaniards identify thmeselves with Romance-language speaking Europeans-although they are genetically much closer to Arabs
• Hungarians-identify themselves Finns and other Finno-Ugric peoples-although they are genetically Slavic or Celtic
• Bosniaks-identify themseves with Turks![14]-despite the thing that they are genetically much closer to other South Slavs (Croats,Serbs,Montenegrins...)--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The addition of dubious Turkish figures by Osmanović (talk · contribs)

Osmanović, I have reverted your additions yet again. Please stop adding poorly sourced, and horribly inflated population figures.

The current revision itself is unsourced; 4.4 million as the high mark is a bit of a stretch, but it's been kept as the status-quo, and few people have a problem with this. But you, out of nowhere, and without a source, decided to inflate this already dubious figure of "2.4 - 4.4 million" to the highly inaccurate "3.5 - 5.2 million". Please, in the future, find reliable sources and discuss controversial changes on the talk page.

You were right about figures for Spain being unsourced, therefore I have removed those.

The "sources" you provided for the Turkish figures, however, are completely unreliable.

• This link from Milliyet fails WP:RS, as it is not a credible published source, the publication regularly claims it's opinion as fact, they report rumours and gossip as fact, they advocate fringe theories, among other problems. With this in mind, one cannot possibly believe this source to be reliable when it comes to anything, particularly something as hard to get accurate data on as Bosniak ancestry.

• The second source you provided immediately fails WP:RS as it is merely a mirror/fork of an outdated revision of this very article from a time when someone had added the same unsourced content you are attempting to add.

I know you are only trying to improve the article, but in the future, please be sure to check if your source meets the criteria for a reliable source, otherwise your edit are pure original research and will be reverted. Thanks. 121.222.179.94 (talk) 02:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay then. This is where i say, i'm out. That's it. There are possibly more than a million and a half Bosniaks in Turkey and wiki doesn't even have that information. If you're happy with it as a possible devoted wikipedia user.. you find the links. What you called unreliable there was the news coverage of the minority report, done by the Council of National Security of Turkey. It's not my fault it's scarcely linked. I don't know what good anymore and I really don't care. --Osmanović (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason "wiki doesn't even have that information" is because there are no reliable sources that suggest figures anywhere near the amount you are claiming. As it has been stated numerous times, without a reliable source, population figures can't be changed. 121.222.179.94 (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh god i can't believe this. I've been hearing the same nerdy source talk for quite while now and it doesn't get any interesting when i know the significance of it very well already! It's a problem with you and like mined wiki contributors. Just because the article isn't in English, it doesn't automatically mean it's unreliable. I gave a link to a well-established Turkish newspaper's coverage about the ethnicity report, done by the National Security Council of Turkey. Go and translate or whatever. I don't care if you don't "like" the link. I don't like to believe language is the only thing that's preventing me from putting up that information when the info about Bosniaks in Serbia is represented with a source that's written in Serbian Cyrillic alphabet. "Oh, i don't understand it. So it's unreliable." Plus why does this page contain the same link that i put up here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Turkey --Osmanović (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with the language. For fuck's sake, READ WHAT I WROTE! I'll copy/paste it here for you.

The "sources" you provided for the Turkish figures, however, are completely unreliable.

*This link from Milliyet fails WP:RS, as it is not a credible published source, the publication regularly claims it's opinion as fact, they report rumours and gossip as fact, they advocate fringe theories, among other problems. With this in mind, one cannot possibly believe this source to be reliable when it comes to anything, particularly something as hard to get accurate data on as Bosniak ancestry.

*The second source you provided immediately fails WP:RS as it is merely a mirror/fork of an outdated revision of this very article from a time when someone had added the same unsourced content you are attempting to add.''

Again, like I said it has nothing to do with the language of the source - non-English sources are fine, as long as they are reliable. Your "sources" are unreliable based on the above criteria according to Wikipedia's Reliable Source policy. Period. 121.222.179.94 (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

you are right! the truth is Turkey rarely do the population census and when doing so, they only count the number of people but not ethnicity! So people around the world will have no idae how many kurds are living in turkey and so with the other ethnic groups.

Bosnian names of Hungarian origin?

Could someone name an example? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.24.172.5 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I can say Kovac is a hungarian origin. Kovac means "smith" in magyar and many Croatian use the name Kovac.

Image

Are you trying to be funny, huh!? Because it's not funny. Do I have to repeat myself, Katarina Kosača has no connection to Bosnian Muslims (or as they call themselves Bosniaks), the only people in Bosnia and Herzegovina who have preserved memory of her are Bosnian Croats, so please remove her from this obviously idiotic image. Stürmkrieger (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried to remove it because she isn't a Bosniak, but I got reverted. Apparently the nationalist fanatics run this article, and everyone else is just happy to appease them. Oh well. 124.187.50.4 (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sturmkrieger, how elaborately and subtly you are denying the existence of the Bosniak people in your post, you must think of yourself as very clever! And not to mention the ingenious reference of your user name to WWII Nazi soldiers, really being the crown jewel of your rampage on Wikipedia. Getting serious, Bosniaks are derived from Bosnjani, and Katarina Kosaca Kotromanic was a Bosnian queen of Bosnjanin nationality (i.e. nothing short of a Bosnian ethnicity). The choice of her picture is valid. Sturmkrieger, do not make your narrow-mindedness an issue of this article. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.130.249.179 (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed ridiculuous that Katarina Kosaca's picture is included here. At the beginning of this article, one comes across three points which seem to suggest that if one fulfills all of them, one is a Bosniak. They are:

Bosniaks are typically characterized by their tie to the Bosnian historical region,
traditional adherence to Islam,
and common culture and language.

Since she did not adhere to Islam, how then can she be considered a Bosniak? I am simply going along with the article, which, contradicts the placement of that picture in the collage. In this respect, it should be removed from it.

Paperoverman (talk) 07:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Nor was there any Bosnianci nationality in the 14th century, even in the medival sense of the word. It was ruled by independent -minded nobility, often under foreign control (whether it was Dukljan, or Hungarian) with little centralized control, little religious homogeneity or structure, and little evidence for any sort of consciouness Hxseek (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Map

Stop removing the map. See File:DemoBIH2006a.png File:Census 2002 Serbia, ethnic map (by municipalities).png File:Montenegroetno03.png. Stop vandalizing the page. 92.36.253.26 (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The map shows incorrect data - green colored area in the lower right corner of the map is called Gora, and is inhabited by Gorani people (see File:Kosovo_ethnic.png, not by Bosniaks. Therefore, the map should be edited to show proper data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.227.198 (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Day of Mosques

Can someone elaborate on what Day of Mosques is? While I found some references, I'm not sure it really has any significance to Bosniak people in general and I have a feeling it's a recent invention. While Ferhadija-mosque and it's tear-down surely is relevant, "day of mosques" appears to be a made-up datemark which is not established in the tradition. I suggest removal. --Esad (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This article about so called "Bosniaks" is disaster.

I do not know where to start but this is just rape of historical facts. 1. Bosna is region same as Hercegovina is. 2. King Tvrtko Kotromanic was Serbian King crowned by Serbian Nemanjic Dinasty Crown. 3. Stecci are only present in Herzegovina and are written in Cyrilic alphabet. I was so grossed out reading this article's lies that i couldn't read any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Fixalot (talk • contribs) 05:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Question?

Why is the picture of Tvrtko Kotromanić in the article? Under the picture it is written :"The 14th century Bosnian king Tvrtko Kotromanić, is seen as an important aspect of the heritage of Bosniak people and Bosnians in general."

I have to repeat, Bosnian Muslims (or as they call thmeselves Bosniaks) had no remembrance of the Bosnian kingdom nor the Bosnian state, so by that logic they had no remembrance of king Tvrtko. So now can somebody explain to me why "king Tvrtko Kotromanić, is seen as an important aspect of the heritage of Bosniak people"? Stürmkrieger (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This argument is a little tiresome. As I understand it the Bosniaks didn't suddenly turn up in Bosnia from Turkey, in the main part they were there already. So they have every bit as much right to claim the regional history as their own as do Croats or Serbs. People don't suddenly lose all of their regional identity because of historic conversion to Islam, which seems to be your argument. If that was the case Iranians would lose all historic links to the Persian Empire. Egyptians would lose all historic links to the Pharaohs etc. So if a regional historic Bosnian figure is important to Bosniaks then people turning up here and saying they cannot claim this because they have no "remembrance" is not helpful, Particularly an SPA who periodically returns to stir up trouble. Polargeo (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Then his picture should be under the History of Bosnia(ns) article, not Bosnian Muslims, if we want to be accurate here. Hxseek (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

When you can actually refer to this ethnicity as Bosniaks then I might even pay attention to your argument. I know you are a serious edior so this is disapointing. Polargeo (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Also if you wish to place the picture in that article as well then I am sure it will be of benefit to wikipeida. Polargeo (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Again a foreign "genius", who comes and enlightens us all with his wisdom. Ok I agree with you, Bosnian Muslims (o.a.t.c.t. Bosniaks) didn't suddenly turn up in Bosnia from Turkey. I don't understand what is this picture doing in this article with an idiotic text under it. It's like putting a picture of queen Teuta in the article about Croats, it doesn't make sense, because she isn't a part of the history of Croatian people. We are talking about Bosnia here, which is a lot more complex than the examples you are giving, and I don't give a damn about Persia or Egypt.

Now to the point Porlageo, you don't know much about Bosnia, just like I don't know much about the country you are from. The main difference between you and me is that I don't get involved in a discussion about your country. And I agree with Hxseek that the picture of king Tvrko should be in the article history of Bosnia.

Here is what a historian, Ivan Lovrenović wrote: "Nema, naime, u muslimanskoj pisanoj i usmenoj tradiciji u Bosni bilo kakvih referenci na bosansku državu i bosansko kraljevstvo"

(translation: "There isn't, in fact, in muslim written or spoken tradition in Bosnia any reference to Bosnian state and Bosnian kingdom"

So now can you explain to me why is king Tvrtko an "important aspect of heritage of Bosniak people" when they have no remembrance of him, Bosnian state and the Bosnian kingdom. Stürmkrieger (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What a joke, everyone can read more about the nonsensical views of "Sturmer" and the other idiotic users on this Croatian nationalist website [15]. 109.175.54.138 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

New Image

It seems that this page is having the same problem as it once has: the image of people who are Bosniaks. Tvtko was Christian, Jukic was in the Franciscan order, Selimovic later declared himself a Serb, and Izetbegovic is the only one who can fully be recognized as Bosniak. One of the requirements set forth in the opening paragraph of the article is the adherence to Islam, and only one of the four in the picture actually falls into that category. Paperoverman (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the problems you've stated, and as such, I've removed the addition of those images pending further discussion. 60.228.194.188 (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

They are part of the history that has got the Bosniak identity to where it is. As long as the article does not claim they are Bosniaks (which it certainly does not) they are significant figures in the development of the regional bosniak identity. This whole "you cannot claim these people are part of your history" rubbish strikes me as central to many of the problems facing the Balkans. Polargeo (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I will ask three simple questions.

1. If Bosnia had not existed would we now call anyone a "Bosniak"?
2. Are the ancestors of present day Bosniaks mainly Turkish in origin or is this just where a significant amount of their cultural identity comes from?
3. Does a significant proportion of Bosniak cultural identity come from sources other than Islam? Polargeo (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I will now answer my questions

1. No
2. The ancestors of present day Bosniaks are not mainly Turkish in origin but Turkey is where a significant amount of the cultural identity comes from.
3. Yes

Therefore why does every image have to be of a Bosniak? If that was the case nobody would have been a Bosniak until the last decade or two. The images show figures who are considered important in developing the cultural identity. The fight in this article has mainly come from people of other cultural identites who are trying to deny the reference to these people because they think they have more of a claim on these historical figures. Whilst that may or may not be true I don't really care for these petty battles and neither should wikipedia have to deal with them. Polargeo (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head. The argument ultimately comes down to the polarization that Catholics and Orthodox in BiH must be Croat or Serb. ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK) 13:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, you say that the article does not claim that the people in the image are identified as Bosniaks. With all due respect, you must be kidding. The headline says "Bosniaks" and below it are the Lilly and the portraits. If that does not imply that they are Bosniaks, I think that the template needs to be reconsidered. As well, on the article for Ivan Franjo Jukić, it says "Bosniak" underneath his portrait, when clearly the man is not.

I don't dispute your argument (I actually agree with it) that they play an important part in the history of the region but it makes no sense to identify them directly as Bosniaks (because they themselves never did!). You're setting a precedent which would make possible to add the photograph of a person to a group which they didn't belong to but could be used to say that the person in question played an important part for that group. Paperoverman (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. I believe whoever put Ivan Franjo Jukic there was trying to start some trouble... I've removed him. His ethnicity is highly debatable, and many argue that the use of "Bosniaks" in this quote: "We Bosniaks, the once-famous people, now that we are barely alive..." was mistranslated (originally Bosnjak), and should be "Bosnian" - i.e. a regional affiliation, and not an ethnic one. This statement on his page sums it up pretty well -- "However, Jukić's national belonging was always and primarily defined as Bosniak (he regularly wrote under the pseudonym of Slavoljub Bošnjak (Slavophile Bosniak), and in such a way so as to include all ethnic and denominational groups inhabiting this space." However, even there I would question the use of "Bosniak" -- "Bosnian" seems much more accurate and I'm questioning whether that page was politically motivated as well.--BignBad (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely Tvrtko should not be there either. For starters, that very image of him is already included in the article, and indeed it's current place in the article is fine, as that section is speaking about the history of Bosnia. I would advise against including someone contentious like Tvrtko in the infobox - that goes not just for this article but also for the articles on the other two aforementioned ethnic groups.

Really, is it too much trouble to add well known individuals who are unlikely to be "controversial"? For example Husein Gradaščević would be a good choice here. 60.228.194.188 (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel that nobody has really read or understood my points above. Nor has anyone even tried to understand them. Instead the discussion has just reverted back to that "you cannot claim him" nature. Polargeo (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot understand why the Tvrtko image was removed, the symbol of Bosniaks is Zlatni ljljan. If we remove the Tvrtko image we can remove this shield.

Here are some people who should be on this template, can someone fix some pics?

• Husein-kapetan Gradaščević
• Mehmedalija Mak Dizdar
• Musa Ćazim Ćatić or this

--DzWiki (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Tvrtko was removed because he was a Christian. His historical importance in developing Bosniak identity does not seem to stand for much because various Croat and Serb editors are passionate about not letting Bosniaks identify with any historical figures who were not Muslim. All extremely petty stuff but there you have it. Polargeo (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, can Bosniaks belong to any religion. I'm not expert but I believe that Ivan Franjo Jukic is a bosniak, says so in the article :S. Anyways, we Bosniaks was stupid to let others write our history. --DzWiki (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

DzWiki... read what I said above. He even refers to it as a "nationality" and not an ethnicity. Many believe that that is a mistranslation -- and the word he is using is "Bosnian", which is more of a regional term than anything ("Bosniak" - ethnic term that never even exited in his day). Quote from his article: "However, Jukić's national belonging was always and primarily defined as Bosniak (he regularly wrote under the pseudonym of Slavoljub Bošnjak (Slavophile Bosniak), and in such a way so as to include all ethnic and denominational groups inhabiting this space." That really sums it up as well - he used "Bosniak" (I'll again state that this is a mistranslation in the modern sense) as a "national"/"regional" term that encompassed all ethnicities in Bosnia. He's Bosnian, but he's NOT an ethnic Bosniak. This isn't about claiming anyone - it's about reporting the facts, and calling Jukic a "Bosniak" is highly debatable and questionable. What we have on this page here is people twisting facts for political reasons, something that is against Wikipedia policies -- no personal political agendas, original research and POV. I will not hesitate to stick a POV/original research tag on this page if this isn't resolved. --BignBad (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Again the point is completely missed. Nobody is saying X is a Bosniak or Y is a Bosniak. If they are important historical figures for Bosniak identity then their images should be allowed in the article as long as the article does not mislead people into thinking they are Bosniaks by the current definition. Polargeo (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, people do understand what you are saying; Having an image of Tvrtko is definitely fine in the article, as he was important in developing Bosniak identity. However, having someone such as him in the infobox - here or on Croat/Serb article - does indeed mislead people into thinking he is a Bosniak by the current definition.

My position is that in ethnic group articles, those who have contributed to the formation of an ethnic identity can, and should, be mentioned (and illustrated) in the appropriate section of the article, while the infobox is for notable individuals who meet the modern definition of the group. 60.228.194.188 (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay I take your point. However, as long as it is made clear that they do not fit the current definition of Bosniak and that they are important figures in the development of the identity then they would be fine in the infobox. Polargeo (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am annoyed at people who come to Wikipedia and share their opinions. Here on Wikipedia, we do not care for your opinion just facts. This debate is totally meaningless.
• I still don't understand why the Tvrtko image was removed from the infobox we use his symbols. I'd love to hear a source saying that the people who lived in Bosnia during Tvtko's time is not Bosniaks ancestors.
• The biggest problem with Ivan Franjo Jukic is that he's not Muslim. But I'm almost 100% sure that if he were a Muslim, no one would come up with these views.
• I should never put up these pictures because there are always nationalists who pretend their self like historians when they do not have the faintest idea.
• Get some sources, then maybe I will belive in u! Or the easiest is to just remove the pictures and stop this unnecessary debate.

--DzWiki (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC) (Perhaps relative to a "Bosniak" during the time Tvrtko ruled in Bosnia)

Yes I agree there would not be the opposition if the historical figure was a muslim even though the argument is essentially the same. It is a really poor argument. Polargeo (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Polargeo, just to add, that Bosniaks had problems with Serbs (genocide, ethnic cleansing, rape etc) during last century, because Serbs had a plan to erase Bosniaks from the Balkans, and to include Bosnia in Serbia. The main reason for the last genocide against Bosniaks was Serbian view of Bosniaks as those who are "Turks" (ie enemy) - Turks defeated Serbs in 1389. Bosniaks in the middle ages were heretics, with their own Church, when the Turks occupied the Balkans they converted to Islam. When Turks left the Balkans, Bosniaks were the only one to be identified with Turks because both nations are Muslims. This psychosis is still very strong among the Serbs and many Wikipedian editors. During Yugoslavia, Serbs didn't allow Bosniaks to be called by their own name - Bosniaks. However Tito (Croat) made a compromise and allowed Bosniaks to be called Muslims and to have a status of a nation in Yugoslavia (Muslims by nationality). After Bosnia became independent, Bosniaks officially returned their own name. After that Serbs committed genocide, which was the last attempt to remove "Turks" from the Balkans. Now, Serbs are trying to remove every trace of Bosniak history. They are still hiding Ratko Mladic as they did with Radovan Karadzic for 15 years. Both monsters are heroes in Serbia today especially among Serbian youth. Rochass (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What an unbelievably hate filled rant. Besides the fact that sort of vitriolic garbage has no place on Wikipedia (or elsewhere), the whole paragraph has absolutely naught to do with the discussion at hand. Please leave your prejudices at the door.

Back to the matter at hand, what is this "if he was a muslim you wouldn't be against it" argument trying to achieve? Of course there wouldn't be a problem if the individuals were muslim, as the current definition of Bosniak stipulates an adherence to Islam, or at least, having ancestors that did. In this very article, right in the lead paragraph it says as much.

A historical Bosnian figure such as Tvrtko should not be used in the infobox as they do not meet the definition of "Bosniak" by modern standards. Bosniak editors might not have a problem with having him there, as they are only looking at the issue from the inside out, but look at it from another perspective. In the vast majority of the English speaking world, there is much confusion over the distinct terms "Bosnian" and "Bosniak" - the latter term being only recently added to the lexicon.

By coming to this page, a reader wants to understand what a Bosniak is, and by seeing a historical Bosnian figure in the infobox - which is meant to give a quick overview of the article - who does not belong (exclusively or otherwise) to any modern ethnic group only serves to confuse the two terms even more, when, as an encyclopedia, confusion and ambiguity is supposed to be dispelled. Only those who meet the modern definition of "Bosniak" should be included in the infobox, because figures such as Tvrtko, simply put, are not Bosniaks by the modern definition. The article body is where they should go; since there is informative text in the article where the image is, there can be little or no confusion to readers who are not as knowledgeable in the subject as we are, whereas there is just no room in the infobox to write up paragraph(s) about the difference between the two terms.

Please, stop crying "hate", "bias", or whatever ad-hominem attacks are at the tip of your tongue whenever you see a view different to your own, as it is simply not the case. 60.228.194.188 (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed history of this article including archives. And it seems this article had been vandalised in different period of time by a Croatian neo-nazi or smth like that guy from Australia/Canberra called Ivan Kricancic (or Ivan Kričančić). My question to anon is: Are you Ivan Kricancic, or his friend? I just want to understand your motive and passion for removing historical pictures of some ethnic group in Europe ?! Rochass (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page, you are not one to talk. He is completely right and justified in removing the two pictures of two non-Bosniaks from this page. As it's been established in this discussion, Jukic and Tvrtko are NOT Bosniaks, but they may have been key in the development of a Bosniak identity. However, putting them under a subheading of "Bosniaks" implies that they are Bosniak and violates many Wikipedia policies: including NPOV, something you've been warned of in the past. --BignBad (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, Rochass needs to be warned to avoid ad hominem attacks, and racist language. Please cease with your nonsensical bullshit and stick to the issue at hand.

Some of the individuals you insist on including in the infobox are simply not Bosniaks, therefore should not be included. End of story. 124.185.221.93 (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're Ivan Kričančić, the neo-nazi guy from Canberra than that might had been considered as ad hominem attack from your perspective, but I don't know who I am talking to. Btw, can you provide any source for your claim. Rochass (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You are insisting on including them, which is why it is left to you to provide a reliable source for their inclusion. However, we've already discussed (and everyone seems to have reached a consensus) that they are not Bosniaks, and including them in the infobox implies that they are, which is deceiving and plain wrong. --BignBad (talk) 06:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong. They were included, you are insisting on removing them, which is why it is left to you to provide a reliable source for their removal. Simple as that. Rochass (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works buddy. Just because they were on this page before doesn't justify their inclusion. A source and only a source does (especially if questioned). If you wish to include something on a page, and do not want it removed, it is up to you to deliver with a reliable source for their inclusion. Everything on here has to be cited. By your logic, I could go make a ridiculous claim on any page and demand a source negating my view for its removal (and depending on how obscure it is, it many not even exist). I don't think so. --BignBad (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

From reliable source: "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations."'

From Verifiability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material

--BignBad (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Rochass, please familiarise yourself with WP:AGF. I don't know why you feel it's necessary to make entirely baseless and completely false accusations against editors here, but please remain civil, keep a cool head, and comment on the content.

Anyway, back on topic. WP:Verifiability states "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed". Since there are no sources cited, those contentious images were rightly removed.

I would also argue (at least for Tvrtko), this is an exceptional claim. The policy on exceptional claims such as "Trvtko was a Bosniak" stipulates that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as...the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

This means it can't just be any old source you use, but it must be highly reliable. Feel free to include him if you can locate such a source, however, I'm 99.9% certain you won't be able to find one. 58.169.206.193 (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nationality/Ethnicity of Meša Selimović

It appears to me that the statement here by Meša Selimović is one of unity. He is not denying his Bosniak roots in any way and in fact says the two things are inseparable to him. Remember John F. Kennedy said "Ich bin ein Berliner", many people speak to please their audience. The term Bosniak was not used as it is now anyway. To take this as meaning he is a Serb in the modern context and not a Bosniak and to edit war his picture out of the article infobox is very poor. I would understand it based on nobody before the Bosnian War being a Bosniak but on the idea that he was a Serb and not a Bosniak seems to me to be a misreading of the situation. He came from a Muslim family in Tuzla. Those are pretty strong Bosniak qualifications and he does not deny his roots. Who knows what he would be classed as if alive in the post Yugoslavia era, however, I do doubt it would be as a Serb. Polargeo (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Having received no comment I have put his picture back in. By birth he was unquestionably a Bosnian Muslim, he in no way denies the importance of his heritage and ethnicity is not determined simply by where you happen to live at any given time and what it says on your passport/ID papers. Polargeo (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"Bosniak" as "Bosnian Muslim" vs. "Bosniak" as "Culturally/Historically Bosnian"

It seems to me that there is a significant problem with the way the question of what constitutes a "Bosniak" is presented in this article. The general consensus seems to be that a Bosniak is what was once referred to as being a "Muslim by nationality" in the former Yugoslavia. This claim, however, is open to interpretation.

As a historical term, Bosniak was not exclusive to Bosnian Muslims, as has already been mentioned by several people, and indeed would more appropriately be understood as a term signifying one who identified as being truly "Bosnian." In this sense, Bosnian could mean Muslim, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish and so on. What it signified, above all, was the particular blend of culture, political structures and traditions that differentiated Bosnia from, say, Croatia or Serbia. Thus, in a historical context, Bosniak became interchangeable with Bosnian, a term that had existed and been in use since at least the Middle Ages (see: Donia, Robert J. & Fine Jr., John V.A., "Bosnia-Hercegovina: A Tradition Betrayed", pg. 71-74, New York: Columbia University Pres, 1994).

It is only in recent decades, and more broadly, over the course of the 20th century that "Bosniak" begins to take on a distinctly Muslim character due a number of factors. There is, however, historically a distinctly different understanding of Bosniak, as a secular term effectively, comparable to modern, secular, and multiethnic notions of citizenship (i.e. Canadian, American, Australian etc).

I think much of the discussion on Tvtrko, for example, is rooted in the inability or, here-to-for, hesitance to demarcate this reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.35.40 (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

-- I should also add, that as far as pictures are concerned, Husein Gradaščević seems like a fairly obvious candidate: http://www.taiwandna.com/BosnianHusein_edited.jpg / http://www.bosnjaci.net/foto/Kapetan_Husein_Gradascevic_big.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.35.40 (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone put him there before but he was removed. Obviously someone didn't think so. Polargeo (talk) 06:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

> That's completely non-sensical. If we are using the above definition of Bosniak as "Bosnian Muslim" (which as I mentioned in my first post isn't as accurate as it might seem), then Gradaščević is about as clear of an example as we're going to find. He was Muslim, he was fighting for a sovereign Bosnia and he referred to himself and his followers as Bosniaks (though these included Serbs and Croats--hence my initial objections). There is absolutely no reason for him to be removed and unless someone can explain their position, I really think he ought to be returned to the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.35.40 (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

My recent revert

It does seem that there is a consensus that Tvrtko should not be in the infobox therefore I have enforced the consensus even though I disagree with it myself. Polargeo (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

King Tvrtko of Bosnia and Husein Kapetan (Dragon of Bosnia) the Biggggest Bosniaks in the Bosnian/Bosniak History --92.225.44.8 (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes maybe but there has been a lot of discussion on this talkpage and the consensus appears to be to not include Tvrtko. I don't see any gain in just continuing this discussion until the world ends or some editor wins through shear strength of edits. Tvrtko is in the article and does not need to be in the infobox as well. Polargeo (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

[[16]]

King Tvrtko?

King Tvrtkos missing image. He was the first Bosniak first Bosnjanin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.91.249 (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.bosnahistorija.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=109:kotromanici-kao-srbinikad&catid=1:srednjovjekovna-bosna-od-700-1463&Itemid=65

--92.225.91.249 (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Jovan Ducic?!

I'd like to hear one good argument why Jovan Ducic is among the list of Bosnian Muslims. --Cinéma C 19:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)