Talk:Bosniaks

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

Hi! Since there are alot of bosniaks in denmark i thought it would be a good idea to put denmark on the list in the box. Since i accidentaly fuck'd it up a bit. Then i hope someone else can edit it. My link for the informations comes from this source http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1280 or in english http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1280

Ther are no Illyrian genetics

Ther is no Illyrian genetics nor Wilkes was anthropolog, nor Coon states that you people are Illyrians, you can create false links and false data but Pyramids and those Illyrians ships, i am afraid, are not of Serb/Bosniak/Muslimanac eeheheheh origin sorry, but go ahed here in wikipedia you kan create links with Illyrians as Fyroms create links with Alexander the great ehhehehehehee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.229.160 (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here it is, we have consensus finally, how Bosniaks are a totally different tribe to Serbs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I1b_(Y-DNA) 77.78.198.147 (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Important Dates in Bosniak history

I will have to agree with Montenegro Interactive, the dates I removed only have to do with Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina and not with Bosniaks in general, even if 90% of Bosniaks are from Bosnia. What about the 10% of Bosniaks outside of Bosnia and Herzegovina that aren't from Bosnia, i.e. from Montenegro, Serbia or the Republic of Macedonia? Aren't dates from the Bosniaks there important as well? Either way, I have created the Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the following reasons: to explain the Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina and to keep the article about Bosniaks to be about Bosniaks in general, and not mostly about the Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Pointe LaRoche 00:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't remove important dates of Bosniaks, because some can think that you are malicious and that you are a sockpuppet of Montenegro Interactive which means you can be blocked indefinitely. The source about the dates of Bosniaks is "History of Bosniaks" by Imamovic Mustafa. Btw, what about the dates of Turkish people in Germany, or Irish people in USA? Bosniaks are identified with Bosnia as an ethnic state, just as Irish people with Ireland, no matter where they live. Also, there isn't article called Irish of Ireland, just Irish. If you continue to misuse Wikipedia, I will devote my life to follow your edits and you sockpuppets. Bye. 85.158.33.85 00:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Bosniaks aren't Bosnians! Bosniaks kept there heritage in Bihor, a region in Montenegro, not in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and are true Bosniaks. When the Bosniaks in Montenegro were gaining notability, that's when the Bosnian Muslims decided to go with them and began to declare themselves Bosniaks. Bosniaks aren't ethnically tied to Bosnia, either, except for those who are from Bosnia. BTW, Mustafa Imamović was a Bosnian Bosniak, there is a difference. This article, as per what Pointe LaRoche says, shouyld be about Bosniaks in general, not mostly about the Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and no, Mr. LaRoche isn't my sockpuppet. For God's sake, I don't even know who he is. --Montenegro Interactive 02:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no true or false Bosniaks. Please, restrain yourself from racist arguments. I will report you, and Pax, and other sockpuppets who do this. "Bosnian Muslims" decided to become Bosniaks, according to whom?! My grandfather and whole family always called themselves Bosniaks, or "Bošnje" (in Bosnian) and they are from the bottom of Bosnia. Now, your claim confirms your racist motive. You deny Bosniaks to be Bosniks, saying that Bosnian Muslims decided to be Bosniaks?! It is the main cause of genocide committed on Bosniaks by Serbs helped by Montenegrins (Novak Kilibarda), because they denied Bosniaks to be Bosniaks. Ottomans called my people Bosniaks, Njegoš called them Bosniaks, and they called themselves Bosniaks. And when you say that "real" Bosniaks are from Montenegro, and that they don't have ties with Bosnia, how possibly do they have Bosnia in their ethnic name? A little common sense wouldn't kill you. 85.158.33.136 09:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Šako and Dado Polumenta are Bosniaks from Montenegro and they don't have any ethnic ties to Bosnia nor are from Bosnia. Neither does Jašar Ahmedovski from the Republic of Macedonia. Nor Emina Jahović, her brother Mirsad and Elma Sinanović, who are all from Novi Pazar in Serbia. What about Rasim Ljajić, the only Bosniak minister in the Serbian government? Not even him. And I can continue with this list if you would like me to. --Montenegro Interactive 02:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about Šako and Polumenta, I don't even know who they are. Emir Kusturica also doesn't have any ethnic ties to Serbia, nor Ivo Andric, and they are Serbs. If you want to write about them, that's ok, but this is racism. 85.158.33.136 09:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Rascism?!?!?! How is this rascism? I myself come from a Montenegrin-Bosniak family. Those people I mentioned have no ethnic ties to Bosnia, that's what I meant for all those people. --Montenegro Interactive 21:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about Montenegro. If you want to write about it, I don't care, but if you continue to write lies about Bosniaks, I will also write smth about Montenegrins, such as their genocide role against my people in cooperation with Slobodan Milosevic.

Your people are the Bosnian Muslims that turned to Bosniakhood after the Bosniaks in Sandzak began gaining notability with the Bosniak nation. The Montenegrins didn't genocide, they only helped out of fear because Serbia was "bigger and better" and since Montenegro was small, they didn't want war to come to them out of fear because they feared that Serbia would crush and say good-bye to Montenegro. Think about it. --Montenegro Interactive 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Listen here, buddy. Thanks to Šerbo Rastoder and other Bosniaks from Montenegro, the Bosniak name came back. What you are being told are lies. BTW, my family as I said is Bosniak, but they aren't tied with Bosnia in any way whatsoever. --Montenegro Interactive 13:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Your sentences are contradict. First, I don't believe you, and I don't care. Second, you say that Bosniak name came back, as it didn't exist before, and after that you say you are from Bosniak family?! So your lies are clear. 85.158.32.121 22:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Who says you have to believe me? You believe whatever you want to believe, but I am truthfully telling you what is the truth. You have been told lies, my friend. The Bosniak nation (and name) existed before but you fail to realise that. The Bosniak name and culture was kept with the Bosniaks of Bihor (in Montenegro) (who were known as Muslims at that time), not the Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Bosniaks from Bihor are what everyone in Montenegro call "the place where true Bosniaks are from", of which my family is from. You fail to realise that as you were told a propogandist story of the Bosniak nation and its history. O, and my, I do come from a Bosniak family who fought for the Bosniak nation. My grandfather, a Bosniak, was a big speaker for the Bosniaks in the Montenegrin parliament. He fought hard for Bosniak rights, however, he died before he was able to see what name the Bosniaks have now and one of his long awaited dreams, to see Montenegro become independent. I'm even fighting for Bosniak rights just like my grandfather once did. So, you can't say I don't come from a Bosniak family, because I do. --Montenegro Interactive 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nor are any of my other Bosniak friends in Montenegro. So you believe what you want to believe since we do have different views on different topics. --Montenegro Interactive 13:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrins committed genocide against Bosniaks, so I see what is your goal here, but no pasaran my friend. 85.158.32.121 22:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrins never committed genocide against Bosniaks during the Bosnian war. And if they did, find evidence to prove your biased accusation. And what is my goal? The only goal I have right know is to spread the truth about the Bosniaks, not some propogandist, biased lies. Most of the article about Bosniaks are about the Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina and their history, not about the Bosniaks in general.--Montenegro Interactive 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've restored an unreferenced tag to this section. I propose removing the section completely to stop this edit-warring if no sources can be provided. --Ronz 22:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about the dates anymore, this is about a war about Bosniaks. --Montenegro Interactive 02:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it isn't about creating a good wikipedia article by following wiki policies and guidelines then it's not going to remain in its current form for much longer. --Ronz 17:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is about you who are malicious and who want to fabricate the facts. I can understand what happened during the war, but I don't understand why again and here?! 85.158.32.121 22:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the reference ISBN 9958-815-00-1 given by 85.158.32.21, along with a failed verification tag. If anyone can list the dates actually provided from this source, we can just remove the others and be done with it. --Ronz 23:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article for verification: Important dates to Bosniaks

• 29 August 1189 - Bosnian statehood charter by ruler Kulin Ban
• 3 July 1436 - Document mentioning Bosnian language
• 25 October 1478 Death of Katarina Kosača-Kotromanić, last Bosnian Queen, in exile in Rome
• 29 March 1831 - The Great Bosnian uprising
• 25 November 1943 - Day of the republic
• 6 May 1950- "Cazin uprising" against Communists and their agrarian reforms
• 2 May 1991 - Day of the Patriotic league
• 1 March 1992 - The Independence day
• 15 April 1992 - Day of the Army of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (today day of Bosniak unit - part of Defence forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina)
• 7 May 1993 - Day of mosques
• 28 September 1993 - Official rebirth of a national name
• 6 March 1995 - Day of the first Bosnian flag
• 11 July 1995 - Day of genocide
• 14 December 1995 - The Dayton agreement
• 4 February 1998 - Day of the flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina
• 19 October 2003 - Death of Alija Izetbegović, first president of independent Bosnia and Herzegovina

I removed the above from the 18:09, 31 August 2007 version [1]. We now have two references that fail to verify the list. I don't think we should add any list back at all until we get complete quotes from references we intend to use, then make a list using only the dates listed in the references. The references so far are:

• Imamović, Mustafa (1996). Historija Bošnjaka. Sarajevo: BZK Preporod. ISBN 9958-815-00-1
• Enver Imamović, Korijeni Bosne i bosanstva, Sarajevo 1995

--Ronz 18:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I just oppose adding the first three - because it doesn't make pretty much sense to add them. That's all. --PaxEquilibrium 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would generally oppose keeping most of these dates as these dates only have to do with the Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina. But of course, no one will listen to me. So instead, I'll give you my list of which ones to remove because I don't see why they are needed in the first place:

• • 29 August 1189 - Bosnian statehood charter by ruler Kulin Ban
  • 3 July 1436 - Document mentioning Bosnian language
  • 25 October 1478 Death of Katarina Kosača-Kotromanić, last Bosnian Queen, in exile in Rome
  • 6 May 1950- "Cazin uprising" against Communists and their agrarian reforms
  • 6 March 1995 - Day of the first Bosnian flag
  • 4 February 1998 - Day of the flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • 19 October 2003 - Death of Alija Izetbegović, first president of independent Bosnia and Herzegovina

--Montenegro Interactive 01:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspectives. Hopefully this will simply come down to what can be verified. --Ronz 17:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Montenegro Interactive pretty much got it. --PaxEquilibrium 18:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Validation

This is clear example of Serb intention against Bosniaks. ICJ ruled that Serbs had specific intention to destroy Bosniaks in Eastern Bosnia. It was called genocide. I think this is the same thing here, because I gave you two sources to confirm the dates, which are important to Bosniaks (You Serbs shouldn't worry about it, because those dates are important to Bosniaks, not to Serbs, so you don't have to delete it, if you don't like it; no more genocide behaviour). But, if you like, I will validate this dates, not because of you (it is pretty clear what are you trying to do here), but for those who wants to read it:

• 29 August 1189 (Page 32, "History of Bosniaks" - II Chapter (Birth of Bosnian state))
• 3 July 1436 - (Page 15, "History of Bosniaks" - Introduction)
• 25 October 1478 Death of Katarina Kosača-Kotromanić, last Bosnian Queen, in exile in Rome (Page 114, "The roots of Bosnia and Bosnianhood" -E.Imovic - "Do we need a queen?")
• 29 March 1831 - The Great Bosnian uprising (Page 333, "History of Bosniaks")
• 25 November 1943 - Day of the republic (It is celebrated every year by Bosniak Institutions, and in Bosniak dominated parts of Bosnia; Also it is still legal holiday according to Deyton agreement)
• 2 May 1991 - Day of the Patriotic league (It is celebrated every year by Bosniak Institutions)
• 1 March 1992 - The Independence day (It is celebrated every year by Bosniak Institutions, and in Bosniak dominated parts of Bosnia)
• 15 April 1992 - Day of the Army of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (today day of Bosniak unit - part of Defence forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina) (Celebrated according to military law of Bosnia and Herzegovina)
• 7 May 1993 - Day of mosques (Page 259, "Takvim 2007")
• 28 September 1993 - (Page 17, "History of Bosniaks" - Introduction)
• 11 July 1995 - (Page 259, "Takvim 2007")

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.33.176 (talk • contribs) 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you shouldn't be calling us Serbs, as they may be a personal attack to some, like me. I am no Serb, I am a proud Montenegrin Bosniak. If you have a problem with this, then go to the Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina article. This is the reason why it was created. What we are trying to do on the "Bosniaks" article is the make the article to talk about Bosniaks in general, not mostly about Bosniaks of BiH, something you are trying to do and for that reason, I believe you should go and do you business in the Bosniaks of BiH article, as mentioned earlier. --Prevalis 00:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it until another editor validates it, given with the past problems we've had with editors erroneously claiming sources properly validated the information. --Ronz 19:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Further, this could be a case of WP:OR, given that the notes above indicate these dates are found across multiple pages of multiple sources. --Ronz 19:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"ICJ ruled that Serbs had specific intention to destroy Bosniaks in Eastern Bosnia. It was called genocide." The ICJ did no such thing. See the ICJ press release that makes it quite clear:

(2) by thirteen votes to two,

Finds that Serbia has not committed genocide, through its organs or persons whose acts engage its responsibility under customary international law, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;

(3) by thirteen votes to two,

Finds that Serbia has not conspired to commit genocide, nor incited the commission of genocide, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;

(4) by eleven votes to four,

Finds that Serbia has not been complicit in genocide, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;

(5) by twelve votes to three,

Finds that Serbia has violated the obligation to prevent genocide, under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in respect of the genocide that occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995;

--Philip Baird Shearer 08:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Philip: Western people know what happened, no matter what the Serbs and Russians paid the ICJ officials, we saw death camps in the western media, so it's too late for people like you fortunately. Holocaust deniers are just that Holocaust deniers. Fortunately it is standard practice that nobody really takes them seriously. 83.67.73.117 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've provided a very good reason

User "Ancient Land of Bosoni" continues to promote a biased view of Bosnian history, treating Bosniak Muslim and Bosnian-Herzegovinian historical figures as virtually the same. According to his view, Bosniaks are the only legitimate heirs to Bosnian history and culture. Nevermind the cultural legacy of Bosnian Croat Franciscans and others. Bosnian Croats and Serbs who consider themselves Bosanci as well do not factor at all, according to him.

At least acknowledge that King Tvrtko was a Christian monarch, and the steccak tombs were erected by members of all three churches alike. If you want a good page to post those pictures, I suggest you direct them to the Wikipedia page on Bosnians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.39.246 (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so.. I fail to see the problem. Croats and Servs/Serbs may share the same heritage, and everybody knows that people of the "Ancient Land of Bosoni" have not been driven out, as there is zero evidence of any conquest of those people by Servian Slavic tribe. BosnianHolocaustSurvior 01:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The article does not describe these bosnian monuments and kings as solely Bosniak, if you read carefully it says 'Bosnian' not 'Bosniak'. Ancient Land of Bosoni —Preceding comment was added at 19:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bosnians and Bosniaks

If Bosniaks (Bošnjaci) want to be a people, it is fine, why not. Who are Peruvians, as an example. Citizens of an country. So bosniaks want to be recognized as new nation, members of an country. But in their wish, they must not endanger other Bosnians (Bosanci), Bosnian croatians and Bosnian Serbs. If we agree, Bosnians are citizens of Bosnia, disregard of their religion, and Bosniaks are people from Bosnia with muslim religion. For moment two terms are more or less one. --Billy the lid 11:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, not all Bosniaks are from Bosnia. The term "Bosniak" is now generally being applied to Muslims in the countries of former Yugoslavia. --Prevalis 22:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Number inflation + Population estimates

People, please stop inflating the population - especially the Total Population estimate. The fact is, the total population is only, and can only be an estimate. It is incorrect to insist on keeping the estimate at 2.8 million, especially after you add up the number in the "Regions with significant populations" sections; the total comes to just over 2.4 million. Unless hard evidence can be found of these 400 000 that someone insists belong here, the population estimate should stay at 2.4 million. Frvernchanezzz 05:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Important Dates in Bosniak history - yet again

Please see WP:SYN. The list appears to be nothing more that dates taken from various sources that the editors, not the sources, deem important to Bosniak culture. What I think would be clearly acceptable is a list from single reliable source on Bosniak culture. For anything else we will need to demonstrate that we're not the ones deciding what dates are deemed culturally important. --Ronz 17:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you quote it? Appears to whom? The sources are well known to every Bosniak on Earth. For example Takvim is one of the four books every Bosniak home has. It contains the calendar and the list of dates that Bosniaks celebrate every year, so please don't behave like a vandal removing that fact or get the source and check it for yourself. 85.158.33.106 18:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No they don't. Maybe Bosnian Bosniaks but not Montenegrin Bosniaks. --Prevalis 19:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a source to back that Takvim is so widely owned?

Please observe WP:TALK, or other editors may be inclined to ignore your comments. --Ronz 01:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No need for this numbers

there is one thing i dont understand... and it is about this table on the right side(number of bosniaks not living in Bosnia and H.). why is there the number of muslims living in these countries? are they supposed to be bosniaks too?! like i would write(e.g. english people in China: 50000 (12 mil. christians))!? thanks!

A lot of Bosniaks claim that those people who declare themselves "Muslims" are Bosniaks. And then there are those Bosniaks who say Islam has nothing to do with being Bosniak. Hmm... Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the solution is to this. Of course we need to carefully document what sources we use. If there are competing sources, we should probably discuss them here on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

The lead section is drifting away from WP:LEAD. It should summarize what is in the main article. It shouldn't be the main and sole place for presenting information. --Ronz (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Dates

As this is allegedly a free encyclopedia I re-added date section about important dates to Bosniaks. All dates are sourced so I don't see the problem here? Can anyone explain me the date section deletion? Grandy Grandy (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bosniaks#Important_Dates_in_Bosniak_history Talk:Bosniaks#Moved_from_article_for_verification:_Important_dates_to_Bosniaks Talk:Bosniaks#Important_Dates_in_Bosniak_history_-_yet_again --Ronz (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So the problem is...?! Where is the explanation? Grandy Grandy (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bosniaks#Important_Dates_in_Bosniak_history_-_yet_again --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin,

{{editprotect}}

There is a contradiction in the article. It says "Most Bosnians are Muslim". Earlier on however it says that they are only 40%, and therefore constitue perhaps a plurality rather than a majority. Therefore I kindly request the admin to replace the words "Most Bosnians" to the words "A plurality of Bosnians" or something to those lines.Tourskin (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It says "most Bosniaks are muslim". That K makes a big difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.64.169 (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

N article does not have that specific phrase. SkierRMH (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Which causes the same problem actually, so there is a contradiction still as per CIA claims which state that Bosniaks are not exclusively of Muslim religion. In fact I went to Bosnia recently and I've yet to meet a religous person amongst the Bosniak population. They seem to have lost all trust in religion after the Genocide they've endured. 83.67.73.117 20:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Tip of advice, you shouldn't have said that they seem to have lost all trust in religion because believe it or not, many Bosnian Bosniaks are deep into religion, especially Islam. You should watch Bosnian TV more and read Bosnian Bosniak sites more often. :) --Prevalis 21:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I do, and you're wrong, because Bosnian media is run by the West and it's loaded with things like "Friends" and American+European films. I've been there last year, and got bored of it. There is common mourning of mass graves and stuff like that with people filmed praying, but that's about the only praying those people do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.73.117 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Zzzzzzzz.....run by the West? Heard that a billion times, and that's where you're wrong. They only syndicate foreign programming because they don't have much programming of their own and need that extra airtime to be filled. Am I the only with common sense? --Prevalis 21:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Great so you've gone back on your previous statements. Secondly, western powers have many military bases in Bosnia and pull all the decision making strings, unfortunately for Russia. It wouldn't be a mature dispute, to dispute that. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.73.117 (talk • contribs) 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't be making obvious statement like yours because many already know this. --Prevalis 23:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My appologies.83.67.73.117 10:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all Bosnians are Muslim, but most Bosniaks are Muslims. Whether or not they are practicing Muslims is irrelevant; they still belong to the religion - I doubt all 1 billion Catholics go to Church every Sunday, but it doesn't stop them from being counted as Catholics. Frvernchanezzz 11:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Not all Bosniaks are Muslim as per definition in CIA.GOV and as per my personal observation that not only "not all Bosniaks are Muslim" but that Most Bosniaks(non Slavic) are not Muslim and affiliate themselves to being Bosniak and quite specifically have given up on religion entirely.83.67.73.117 12:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You're not listening though - the sentence is Most Bosniaks are Muslim - this is 100% factually true - whether or not some (or even a significant minority) Bosniaks are not Muslim is irrelevant, as the majority are. Frvernchanezzz 07:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong title

"18th century Bosniak festival" painting actually represents "Liberation in WWII" (of Bihac, I think). Folks in the painting look oriental, but soldiers are WWII partisans. This painting is a known work of art. 99.229.96.231 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If the painting cannot be properly identified, I think it should be removed per WP:V. --Ronz 17:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is it: "Liberation of Jajce" (in WWII), made in 1950s, author: Ismet Mujezinović 99.229.96.231 (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good work. Can you provide something here so that we can all verify this? --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Need for sources for this article!

For such a contentious subject matter as this appears to be it would be a great help if the article was properly sourced. Preferably with sources available online. Today, large parts of the text are completely unsourced. This may contribute to the disagreements. I've found a couple of sources which look to be both useful and reliable. If there are other, please add (or take out if you find them to be unsuitable, though please state why).Osli73 12:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Bosniak or Muslim, by Bohdana Dimitrovova, Central European University, Budapest, October 2001
• National identity, Islam and politics in post-communist Bosnia-Hercegovina, by Aydin Babuna, East European Quarterly, 22 December 2005
• Bosnian Muslims —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osli73 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your sources seem to claim that Bosniak ethnic group is 2billion people strong. Muslim ethnic group? HAHAHAHA :D NeutralBosnian 13:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In ex-Yugoslavia Bosniacs were referred to as Moslem national group (capital M). So it's no HAHAHA. Term Bosniac emerged in late 1980's. 142.201.5.100 18:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Which goes to prove why it collapsed and how uneducated, fascist and baseless Yugoslavia was by using a religion to refer to an ethnic group which was quite possibly an attempt to airbrush a whole people which is precisely why we need to rely on genetics more in this article. Further - your 1980's claim is in contradiction with many sources used in this article. NeutralBosnian 18:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. The term Moslem was the first term to describe the people that used to be called Turks (incorrect and probably insulting), or Serb-muhammedans (even Alija Izetbegovic used this term early on). 142.201.5.100 21:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Learn to read. The sources don't even come close to claiming there are 2 billion Bosnian muslims. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wilkes information

Can someone please provide a direct quote for the reference below?

For example, the prominent anthropologist John J. Wilkes regards Bosniaks (and Bosnians in general) as the possible descendants of Illyrians - John J. Wilkes, "The Illyrians" (Wiley; New Ed edition (November 30, 1995)). Chapter 9, Imperial Illyrians, page 254-281.

I think "prominent" is just WP:Peacock without some references provided here. I've looked for such references, but cannot find any. I don't believe it needs sourcing within the article if we can agree on his stature here on the talk page. --Ronz 03:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. He's hardly prominent in any way. And if his ridiculous claims had any merit, then other "prominent" academics would agree - but they don't. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And you say that without sources as expected. Which proves your bias and non-neutral arguments. You clearly favour the Slavophile agenda. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/staff/profiles/wilkes.htm I doubt anybody would want to declare somebody like this under WP:Peacock. 83.67.73.117 (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:Peacock says, "Instead of telling the reader that a subject is important, use facts to show the subject's importance".

WP:NPOV is also extremely helpful here because we need to present Wilkes information in a balanced and unbiased fashion.

While I don't think we can or should write about Wilkes in much detail in this article, I think we do need to discuss (and source) what we want to say about him. 83.67.73.117 has given his staff profile as a source. While this is helpful, it is not a source from which we can determine how to discuss him in a balanced and unbiased fashion. For that we need independent sources per WP:NPOV --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wilkes is not prominent. For now, I'll leave the quote attributed to him in the article, but I will be removing the word "prominent" right now. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic make up

The intro paragraph on this article is poor.

"Bosniaks belong to the Slavic ethnic group, but their genetic make-up is a mixture of Slav settlers and descendants of pre-Slavic indigenous Illyrian tribes. [2][3]. For example, the prominent anthropologist John J. Wilkes regards Bosniaks (and Bosnians in general) as the possible descendants of Illyrians[4]. In addition, Celts and to a lesser extent Goths who spanned the Balkans for distinct periods, often encountering Illyrians, may have influenced today's Bosnian population.[citation needed]"

Whilst there is a opinion amongst scholars that virtually all the south slavs may have absorbed elements of the original Balkan populations, such as Illyrians, the subsequent reference to Goths and Celts is far-fetched. Whilst the Celts and Goths certainly had a presence in the Balkans, albeit brief and long beofre the arrival of slavs, there is nothing to suggest that they actually contribued to the genetic make up of modern Bosniaks. They migrated elswhere subsequently. Even if a few remnant families stayed behind, this would hardly constitue 'genetic contribution'. Such a wishy-washy statement needs to be removed if the standards we aim to achieve are to be attained. Hxseek 07:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah all that genetics stuff is, to put it simply, bullshit (pardon my French). But it's hard to keep it out as most Bosniaks really want to distinguish themselves from Serbs and Croats - which is fine, as all nations should have a right to self determination. So although I would like to completely remove the genetics crap from this and other ethnic articles, the best bet is to try and reach a compromise which isn't so blatantly POV. Frvernchanezzz 07:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As I pointed out above in Talk:Bosniaks#WP:LEAD, the introduction needs to be rewritten. If no one responds to my request for verification on the Wilkes reference Talk:Bosniaks#Wilkes_information, it will need to be trimmed down if not removed completely. --Ronz 18:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course every people has a right to self-determination. But we cannot just invent some special magical heritage just to feel good about ourselves, at least not for the purposes of an encyclopedia Hxseek (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

- This subject is being repeated yet again. It gets resolved and started again and again. I suggest removal of this one as it started with adult language, only for that reason and tidyness and avoidance of battles, no other agenda. I suggest Ronz and Frvernchanezzz see: WP:TALK, WP:SOAP, and WP:BATTLE. 83.67.73.117 (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:CON, WP:TALK, and WP:NOT. Articles change. Consensus changes. Editors are encouraged to use article talk pages to discuss the problems they see in the article and work toward improving it.

Please join the discussion rather than call for an end to it. It would be helpful for you to point out where it was last resolved and your perspective on those past discussions. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose the term 'South Slavic' as WP:PEACOCK for reasons of absolutely no independent sources provided, while genetic studies conclude that roughly 10% of Bosniak genetic heritage is of non-indigenous-European origin which is roughly the same as most European nations. As this is a disputed subject, I propose that we rely solely on genetic evidence provided to trace ancient tribal movements to conclude heritage, instead of just taking one side or another (Bosniak Illyrian claim vs Slavophile Slavic claim). That sounds like a neutral approach. NeutralBosnian (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. The only mention of 'South Slavic' in this discussion so far is by you. What are you referring to? --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to the Ethnic description in the introduction part of the page.NeutralBosnian (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I don't understand what the dispute is about, but South Slav is an existing article, so it's hopefully just a matter of agreement from the other editors here. --Ronz (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that South Slavs lists Bosniaks as a South Slavic people, I can see no reason for it's deletion. --Ronz (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Noel Malcolm is someone Bosniaks often quote when regarding their history. In his book "Bosnia A Short History", Malcolm clearly states that the inhabitants of Bosnia (i.e, Bosniaks) were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia. Not Illyrians, or Aryans, or any other anachronistic claim. Bosniaks are Slavs. All of mainstream science knows and accepts it. This issue should well and truly be over, and this talk should be archived. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I disagree on the archiving, as there are multiple discussions by multiple editors concerning this section of the article. The paragraph in question should at least be moved out of the lead section and into the main article. If it cannot be better verified, then perhaps it should be removed altogether. --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Page protection & disputes

I don't think we've made much headway with the disputes that resulted in the page protection. I'll request page protection again if the same disputes just begin anew once protection is lifted. --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's almost certain to happen again. I think the page would either have to be very closely monitored by multiple neutral administrators, or the page will be perennially protected. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also for this to be kept protected untill everybody calms down, and becomes aware that not only violence and Slavophile agenda is valid. Please try to be neutral and the perspective should be from Bosniak perspective and not from Slavophile because Serb and Russian media claim that Serb soldiers were the victims in Srebrenica which is insane to most. http://www.serbianna.com/features/srebrenica/ 83.67.73.117 (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As an outsider who happened to see this article mentioned on WP:AN/I, & has no serious interest in its content, I'd like to offer a piece of advice. A couple of places above, I saw people using phrases like "Listen Buddy" & "You're not listening". This language not only shows its user getting angry, but also would makes the person it is directed at angry. Angry people cannot find a way to arrive at a consensus & get out of this impass over this article. My suggestion is that when you feel compelled to talk like this, step back, take a deep breath & try to find less aggressive language in this matter. Try a word like "friend" or, if you honestly feel that you are not being heard, explain patiently that you already said something & ask sincerely if your argument was unclear. At worst, you're keeping calm while the person you are talking with potentially will lose her/his cool -- which is likely to get them blocked from editting. At best, if both of you engage in a conversation civilly, maybe some of you will reach this semi-legendary thing known as a consensus, get the article unlocked, & will make at least one contribution to Wikipedia that all parties can be proud of. -- llywrch (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And on that note, can an admin please stop Ronz from modifying my text and reshaping my sentences, it looks insane to have to fight for your own sentences with undo wars? 83.67.73.117 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I simply split up what you wrote into two different parts so we could all deal with the different topics you wrote about separately. This is standard practice in talk pages when responding to editors that address many different topics in one long comment. I've restored your comments above, and kept another copy below. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Llywrch wrote, "A couple of places above, I saw people using phrases like...": Excellent advise. I'd only add that it is perfectly acceptable, and even encouraged, for editors to WP:REFACTOR their own edits for clarity and appropriateness. I am always willing to so with my own at others' requests, and will do so regardless if I see I've written something that is causing confusion. --Ronz (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that although you may be right about that Ronz, as a show of good faith you don't refactor 83.67.73's comments? If I sound like just another busybody, feel free to ignore this comment. -- llywrch (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done no such refactoring. I did split his comments for discussion, a standard method of better addressing an editors comments, but when I saw that he didn't understand what I had done, I undid the split and simply made two copies for two different discussions. --Ronz (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Jut in passing Ronz please consider what the last paragraph in lead section of WP:REFACTOR says and also the comments on WP:TALK#Others' comments. If there is a break down in good faith the last thing anyone needs is an edit war over the talk page, it is better to revert "a split" if the other person complains even if you think that is all it is. You can always quote the parts of the other person text you wish to reply to in new sections which will have the same effect without touching the other persons talk page contribution. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what I did over a day ago.[2]. I'm sorry that I didn't make it clear when I immediately explained [3] and explained again [4]. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

ABOUT BOSNIANS ( BOSNIKS, BOSNIAN MUSLIMS) IN SANDZAK AND OTHER TERRITORIES

I WANNA SAY FEW WORDS REGARDING BOSNIAN PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF BOSNIA

Known fact in the history is that Bosnia was Willaya inside of Ottoman Empire for almost 600 years and borders of Bosnia are known as well. Sancak Of Yeni Bazar was taken away from Bosnia after Berlin Congress in 1887 and divided betweeen Serbia and Montenegro. As well other parts of Bosnia which are now parts of Serbia and Montenegro. Another thing important to remember is that ethnicity or term we use now nationality didnt have any meaning in Ottoman empire. But if we are to speak about it its good to remind that majority in all towns in Montengero by 1864 were muslims (Bosnians), as well towns in serbia such s Uzice, Sokolac, Sabac and many others. People were either muslims or non muslims until collapse of Ottoman Empire and raise of nationalism in 19 century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive

I suggest we now archive the silly debate about Bosniaks not being Slav, since the 2 anon's and NeutralBosnian were found to be the same user - a ban evading sock (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NeutralBosnian) Frvernchanezzz (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Ronz (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Malcom's quote

As for the question of whether the inhabitants of Bosnia were really Croat or really Serb in 1180, it cannot be answered, for two reasons: first, because we lack evidence, and secondly, because the question lacks meaning. We can say that the majority of the Bosnian territory was probably occupied by Croats - or at least, by Slavs under Croat rule - in the seventh century; but that is a tribal label which has little or no meaning five centuries later. The Bosnians were generally closer to the Croats in their religious and political history; but to apply the modern notion of Croat identity (something constructed in recent centuries out of religion, history, and language) to anyone in this period would be an anachronism. All that one can sensibly say about the ethnic identity of the Bosnians is this: they were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia

Whilst malcom's first sentence is great and agreeable, he unfortunately lets himself down a little. What is now central and eastern Bosnia, as well as herzegovina, thus the majority of "bosnia' per se, where actually part of Baptised Serbia back in the 7-10th centuries. Additionally, its early political history fluctuated between periods of Croat and Serb influence, although certainly from the 12th century it had more in common with Croatia because of the mutual Hungarian domination. And as for religious 'ties' we all well know that there were 3 different Christian followings in Bosnia before the arrival of Islam, whereas Croatia was wholly Catholic. So i suggest his quote is either removed or elaborated upon and corrected in a subsequent paragraph. Furthermore, I do not see why we have to beat around the bush about the ethnicity- we can simply day that what is now Bosnia was originally inhabited by Serb and Croat tribes that subsequently developed somewhat of an idependent identity and political existence Hxseek (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Very good points. I'm reluctant to remove it as it is sourced. Do you have some sources for the subsequent paragraph? --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. Here are a couple

According to The Serbs. S M Cirkovic. 2004 Bosnia was part of 'Baptised Serbia' - the inland component settled by Serbs (to distinguisgh it from the coastal principalities) - which was a far more easterly lying land c/f today's Serbia, whose northern border lay between the Sava river and Dinaric Alps, to is immediate north amd west were their kin- the Croat tribes.

essentially it describes that what is now Bosnia was, roughly, settled by Serbs in eastern half and Croats western Half

This is confirmed by the catholic encyclopedia which describes that what is now Bosnia was settled by Slavs, ie- Serb and Croat tribes predominantly.

Bosnia started becoming a recognised region from the 10th century onwards. initially it was a province centred on the Bosna river basin (The Balkans: From Communsim to Constantinople. Dennis P Hupchik). It was somewhat of a border region

Its early history is sketchy, but there are a few clues. In the 930s it was part of the new, expanding croat Kingdom, but then occupied by Bulgaria under Simeon. It was freed the confederacy of Serb principalities led By Caslav Klomirinovic (Catholic Encyclopedia) in 950, who died defending the area against Magyar raids. ('The Serbs'. After his death it seceedded from the confederacy and probably divided into smaller statelets, ruled by local nobles, but then may have been briefly under Croatian rule during Kresimir's reign in 990s. It was briefly occupied and ruled by Bulgaria for the 2nd time under Samuil c. 1012. After the fall of Bulgaria in 1018, Byzantines re-asserted their hegemony in the balkans. In 1050s, Duklja's Voislav rulers liberated much of the Serb lands from Byzantines, and emplaced one is his relatives, one Marko as ruler of Bosnia. In 1102 when Croatia was conquered by Hungary, Bosnia too was conquered, and ruled directly nby Hungarian prince until 1138, when the Hungarian kind then appointed local Bans- the 1st one we know is Ban Boric. However by 1166 the Byzantines again affirmed their rule, and appointed ban Kulin, who then reneged on his vassalage after Manuel Komnenos died, and went to war against Byzantium, swearing fielty to the Hungarian King, but was essentially an independent player. From here Bosnia's political history is better known.

Map of Europe in 1097, From Shepherds Historical Atlas

As to the Bosnia people- there is no doubt that it was setlled by Serb and Croat tribes, as we have seen. The issue lies in regard to the 'identity' or 'orientation' of the middle age Bosnian banate- was it Serb, Croat or all together its own culture. From the 11th century, it was already forming into a semi-independent province. Serbia was gravitating southeard towards the Greek realms, and Croatia was at the mercy of Hungary. John Kinnamos, a chronicler of the 12th century Byzantine-Hungarian conflicts remarked: the Drina river "seperates Bosnia from the rest of Serbia", implying that it was originally part of it. But also remarked that "the people of Bosnia are not subject to the Grand Zhupans of Serbia". Religiously, Bosnia was a nominally under sway of Rome, via the archbishopric of Dubrovnik. However, it continued to practice in Slavic liturgy and it had "eastern-type monasticism", It took the name of the "Bosnian church' and was accused of being under the sway of Bogomils. But this was not a deep-rooted religion, and many people were also outright Catholic or Orthodox, each tended to dominate in certain regions of Bosnia "at the relative exclusion of others" ( D Hupchik). This religious division proved stronger than any 'tribal origins' the population may have had centuries earlier. What did the people see themselves as? According to Cirkovic's book, ruler Mateh Nonoslav called his subjects Serbs, whilst Stepjan II (1314-53) called himself Bosniaci who spoke the Serb tongue. I'm sure other people can produce evidence that they saw themselves as Croats, or neither. I;m not trying to prove a any particulr stance. It is clear that it certainly was under the sway of both Croatia and Serbia, although it certainly emerged as a Kingdom in its own rightMalcom's quote is right in the sense that we cannot neatly categorise medieval Bosnia into an ethno-national classification in modern terms, as the difference even between serbs and Croats were negligible back then apart from the obvious religious division, however, i feel that his overall knowledge of the situation is rather poor for a 'Historian'.

Hxseek (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My recent revert

Sorry Ancient, I reverted your latest edit. Myself, I don't really have a problem with the content of it, but many of the other contributors of this page likely will. Please discuss that huge edit before making it again. Thanks. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosniaks in Turkey

I dont get why my changes keep getting deleted, I mean i could find plenty of sources stating that there is millions of Turks with Bosniak ancestory.

Your change keeps getting reverted because you keep on inserting an extremely inaccurate number + an even more dubious source to go with it. We've all seen these sorts of claims before - some people claim there are 150 - 200 million Irish people in the world just because the Irish have migrated everywhere. Anyway, when you see a number like 9 million for Bosniaks, then you know something is wrong, as most reliable academics all say there are around 2.4 million self identifying Bosniaks in the world. Now, it is possible and likely that some people who live in Turkey nowadays had ancestors who came from Bosnia (they may or may not have been Bosniaks), but these people have long since adopted Turkish culture, language, cuisine, dress etc, so they are not Bosniaks in any way, shape or form. And even if you could count these people (which you cannot as they are not self identifying Bosniaks, and most wouldn't even know about any sort of heritage from Bosnia), there would be nowhere near the amount of them that you keep inserting. First off, you tried to add that in 1991 there were 4 million Bosniaks in Turkey. Then, you tried to add that in 2006 there were 7 million Bosniaks in Turkey. The first figure is extremely inaccurate, and then you go on to claim that within the space of 15 years the population of these non-identifying Bosniaks somehow increased almost twofold. It's ridiculous. The most accurate estimate than can be gathered is that there are around 2.4 million self identifying Bosniaks in the world. All claims that go so far as to say there are 9 million Bosniaks are treated as nationalist myths/propaganda. Please stop trying to insert these pseudo-scientific claims. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see where you're coming from but where did you get that there is 2.4 million Bosniaks in the world? Is that your estimate or what ?Just because they took in Turkish culture, language, cuisine, dress doesn't make them any less Bosniak that's just nonsense, Just because I live in the U.S and have to take in their language,cuisine,dress etc. doesn't in any way mean that I am not a Bosniak anymore.It's nearly impossible to get accurate statistics because of the fact that Bosniaks fleeing to the remnants of the Ottoman Empire were forced to change their last name in order to sound more Turkish -- so it's impossible to trace Bosnian roots through last names.And that is why the two estimates were so far apart.And for the estimate of Bosniaks in the U.S that it ridiculous because In Chicago and St.Louis alone there is around 90,000 Bosniaks, and that's not even counting the amounts throughout the U.S.

A person only belongs to an ethnic group if he self identifies with that group. You cannot claim one person is part of that ethnic group just because his great-great-great-great-great grandfather was one. Like I said, there are crazy numbers like this all over - the best example is the Irish. They are another people who have migrated all over the globe. There are around 80 million Irish people in the world who acknowledge their ancestry and stay true to their heritage (mostly Irish-Americans or even Irish-Australians), but if you count everyone who has one drop of Irish in their blood, then the number could easily go to 200 million or more - however very, very few of these people who actually self-identify as Irish people, and a lot would not even know about or even acknowledge that they have Irish ancestry. Do you see what the point is? Now, of those Turks who have "Bosnian ancestry", what percentage of these Bosnians are even Bosniaks, because as we all know, Bosnians are not only Bosniaks. Even more so, hardly any of them readily self-identify as "Bosniaks" or "Bosnians" at all. So as it stands, from reliable sources that count self identifying Bosniaks, the fact remains that there are around 2.4 million Bosniaks in the world. Number much higher than this are obviously dismissed as false. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well we dont know if there is Bosniaks that self-identify themselves as Bosniaks in Turkey.There hasn't been any polls or anything.Yes the Irish is good example but is a wayy different situation than the one we are discussing.Well 99.8% of Turkey are Muslims, and as you know Bosniaks are mostly Bosnian Muslims so you do the math.And also they broadcast their local channels in Bosnian a couple hours a week, which i doubt they would be doing if they didnt have such a large population.And about the self-identifying problem , we will never know unless they have a poll or something, same things as Serbs and Croats born in Bosnia that deny that they're Bosnian, doesn't mean they're not, they're born there arent't they ?And how is it a FACT that there is 2.4 million when It's an ESTIMATE? An estimate with no proof behind it that is.

Any additions of pseudo-scientific nationalist myths/propaganda will be reverted. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Josip Broz Tito

This article doesn't mention Tito, the man who invented this nation through a predecessor name: Muslimani —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.238.16 (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The article also doesnt mention Njegos who invented so called "Serb" nation. 24.82.181.243 (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am bosniak ,and I will count how many bosniaks are in bosnia,serbia,croatia.......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinc (talk • contribs) 15:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbian and Croatian origin of Bosniaks

We cannot outrule the fact that many Bosniaks are in fact Serbs and Croats who were converted to Islam (Islamification; forcefully), in Bosnia, Sandzak and Kosovo. As the Bosniaks of Sandzak and Kosovo (Gorani) has nothing to do with the region of Bosnia. for example: Pomaks are Bulgarian Muslims, of Bulgarian ethnic origin and Muslim faith. Gorani are Serbs/Slavic Muslims, of Serbian ethnic origin and Muslim faith. The fact that the Muslims of Kosovo and Sandzak preserve not only traditional and ethnic serb customs, they have also preserved Serbian surnames, older than the Bosnia(n/k) nationality/ethnicity. "Bosnian" was a regional affiliation in the medieval Balkans, so the people of Bosnia were christian Serbs (orthodox) and Croats (catholic), and a very very small fraction of Bogomils (what was the ethnic origin of Bogomils? thats right, its a religion, not a ethnicity).

/User:nexm0d

Yes. Well, as stated they were Slavs for sure, surrounded by lands known to be inhabited by Serbs and Croats, so they were certainly, at least in part, derived from Serbs and Croats. We cannot deny this. There was no tribe called Bosniaks in the 700s. No other Slavic tribes is mentoned in the area either. The Byzantines had good knowledged of the many Slavic tribes-the Sclavinias. Constantine porphyrogenitus essentially describes that what is now Bosnia was settled by Serbs and Croats. Understandibly, our Bosnian wikipedia colleagues are a bit touchy about being called the descendents of Serbs or Croats. However, we must delineate the difference between modern Serbs and Croats (who are the final result of fusion of many different peoples) compared to the original Serb and Croat tribes or clans who were just two amongst many tribes composed of very similar Slavic peoples. Eg modern Serbs ancestors are the Serb, Braniches, Abordrites, Timochans, Moravjans Slavs; as well as Romans and Vlachs.

The core territory of Serb and Croat tribes/ clans was in (what is now) southwestern Serbia and northern Dalmatia, respectively. They ruled over the Slavs in Bosnia from 800s to 1100s. Because they were the most powerful clans, they assimilated other SLavs into their tribal name. Bosnia was right in the middle of the two. Archeological culture shows that definitely western part (half) was part of the Croats. The south-eastern part was associated with Serb settlements. We have to be objective, put national pride aside and admit this . Yet, an independent Bosnian Kingdom did arise, and there is some (very small) evidence that the Kings called their people "Bosnjanci". However, the seperateness of Bosniaks was only cemented when they converted to Islam. Later in the late 19th early 20th century, Austria pushed the notion of the existence of a seperate Bosnian "ethnicity" to curb the rising Pan-Slavic movement in the Balkans by placing ideological seeds of seperatness into the minds of the South Slavs. Hxseek (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: The idea that the conversions were forced has been recently been challenged. Peculiar to Bosnia (and ALbania), many of the local regional nobles converted for pragmatic reasons. Whilst the large majority of Serbs, Croats, Greeks, Bulgarians etc remained Christians, the 'Bosnians' had no qualms about renouncing Christianity in order to get tax benefits . By becoming muslim, they were allowed to gain a position in the Turkish Islamic heirarchy. THe peasents under the rule of these converted local nobles also converted to Islam. As pointed out in the article, Bosnia was already segragated between factioning nobles, and no one form of Christianity predominated and became deeply rooted. So it was no big step for one noble to turn to Islam to increase his power compared to his adjacent rival.

Dubious edits

Someone has made some historically incorrect statements like Bosnia became a kingdom in 11th century, quoting Malcolm. There is so wrong. They have either mis-quoted him, or Malcolm is blatantly wrong and an incapable historian who should not be used as a source. Hxseek (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea but Malcolm is not considered incapable by civilised world such as Great Britain. They assigned him as the main historian on the Balcans issues. Hense the Western media only ever quotes him in their reports. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nature of -iak/-yak suffix

There is a paragraph in the article as it stands that suggests that the move from the -nin suffix to the -iak suffix was somehow the result of linguistic "Turkification". As a speaker of a variety of Turkic languages I can assure you that -yak does not appear as a normal Turkic ethnonymic suffix. The typical form in Turkic languages is -lIQ or -lI, as for example in "Arnavutlu" ('Albanian'). The -yak suffix I have encountered in various Slavic languages, principally Russian, as for example "Permyak" or "Murmanyak", also compare Polish "Polak"; however I hesitate to make comparisons in that case as I know next to nothing about Slavic languages. 128.101.230.62 (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Overview section, the Genetics need rewording to reflect findings

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/10/1964#TBL1 It is new GENETIC analysis which happens to prove that only Bosniaks are indigenous Europeans in X-Yugoslavia region. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

From these studies Bosniak's and Herzegovians have 64% I1b haplogroup which is found almost exclusively inside Bosniak areas and diminishes as can be seen as you enter the neighbouring boarders (Croatia and Serbia). Important to note: this haplogroup is impossible to assign to Slavic settlers. However the genetic favour in this article in the 'Overview' section is incorrectly weighing toward the so called Slavic genetic heritage.. when these studies prove the reverse. Remember that we are talking about genetics here, and not Point of view. So it will look silly and more and more people will see inconsistancies if the studies say one thing and the interpretation the reverse. I think we have to reflect the studies in the Overview section for starters. Rewording is needed to weigh toward the Indiginous European gene pool of the Balcans region first then others (Goth, Celt) and lastly Slavic because it is simply too obvious and clear that, that is the case in the Oxford studies. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, see the thing is, the study say Bosnians and Herzegovinans, not Bosniaks; which means that this study not only applies to Bosniaks, but to Croats and Serbs and others who inhabit the Bosnia region.

You forgot to remember that Bosniaks are also Bosnian hense, the studie which found that they have almost no Slavic genetic signature applies to them too.

Actually, no, I didn't forget - notice how I said "this study not only applies to Bosniaks, but to Croats and Serbs and others who inhabit the Bosnia region". So yeah, my point remains valid that Bosniaks are not any more or any less Slavs than Croats, Serbs and other Balkan people. 121.222.199.140 (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Another point is, you keep changing "Bosniaks are Slavic" to "Bosniaks are Slavic speakers" - the problem with this is that it appears to be written in such a way to suggest that Bosniaks are somehow "superior" to Slavs. Also, strictly speaking, ethnicity is not about genetics, rather it is about culture and language, so Bosniaks, as speakers of Slavic languages and having Slavic culture, are Slavs and not just Slav "speakers". 121.222.199.140 (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why cry wolf on "Slav's vs Other's" when in reality WW2 is over and most people actually don't think Slav's are inferior. Secondly it is rather imprecise to say Bosniaks have Slavic culture, as they actually have more Turkish/Other culture than "Slavic culture". 77.78.199.117 (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, Bosniaks culture is more Slavic than Islamic - language, cuisine, dress, architecture - all Slavic. It is quite erroneous to suggest Bosniaks are anything other than Slavs, so no, the article will continue to state that fact.

That sounds rather nasty, you seem to be equating Islamic culture to Turkish culture (Belly dancing, Shish kebab, Baklawa and so on). It doesn't seem like you have the winning argument here. Bosnian capital is almost exclusively Turkish and Austrian architecture, And all the Turkish quisine like Baklawa and so on, all internationally recognised. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Apart from this, your only other addition to the article was that External link to that Oxford study - and if you'll notice, that link is still in the external link section, so I don't see any reason for this to continue as it seems to be resolved; that is, your link is there, and Bosniaks are without a doubt, Slavs. 121.222.199.140 (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks wise to leave the link in there, although I wouldn't be surprised if somebody removes it, due to so much of this article being POW driven. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, we need some non-serb/non-bosniak/non-croat points of view here, no anon users etc. to inject some oppinions. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'm not serb, bosniak nor croat and I'm not anonymous. I should be precisely the person you want, and I'll tell you right away that you're wrong. The source says nothing even close to what you are claiming. Apart from being old, it only talks about Bosnians, not Bosniaks. And it doesn't say anything about other Balkan peoples being recent newcomers from Asia, that's entirely your own invention. Take this from a neutral editor on Balkan-subjects, you are clearly in the wrong here and your edits are original research. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just read above in that case instead of just saying "you're wrong", you seem to be very emotionally charged for a "neutral". By the way: dismissing Oxford university research as "Old" is rather POW driven as it wasn't changed by that University. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Two comments. Oxford is of course a reliable source, but the field of genetics have made enormous progress during the last 40(!) years. And once again, the research their says nothing about "Bosniaks" at all, and it doesn't make any claim about any people being the original inhabitangs. Both of those are your own interpretations. There's nothing emotional in that, just a scientific comment. JdeJ (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember Bosniaks are Bosnians. And it does highlight I1b haplogroup, read above. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely true. And remember that Serbs are Bosnians and that Croats are Bosnians. At the time the research for that study was carried out, Bosniaks made up around 35% of the Bosnian population and Bosnian Serbs were the largest group. So it would be at least as right (or wrong) to say that Bosnian Serbs are the original people of the Balkans. JdeJ (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that's why somebody will need to revise Bosnian Serb/Croat sections too when talking about origins and genetic origins. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been quiet for a 'long' time, I am going to assume therefore my argument prevailed. ??? WTF, some of us actually DO have better things to do than edit Wikipedia.

So, it seems the general consensus is against you, it also seems you are unwilling to listen or to compromise, it does seem you are xenophobic, and furthermore, you cannot even interpret sources correctly. Basically the article will stay the same, but with your external link to Oxford remaining. I don't think that's at all unreasonable. 121.222.199.140 (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok master and owner of Wikipedia, I hope your chatroom aggression doesn't prevail, against Oxford University. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey listen buddy, you do not control Wikipedia, and the way this site works is you need a C-O-N-S-E-N-S-U-S to make radical (and wrong) changes like that. That is why YOU must "win" before your version can stay, and that is why, I, must revert you, and must keep reverting you until people here agree with you - which they don't. 121.222.161.213 (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

With that comment you are braking even more rules.. Why bother reverting what I proved the more reflecting to genetic findings? It doesn't diminish the Slavic influence at all even. Secondly don't be so emotional and aggressive. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would encourage less emotional outburts by all parties. User 121.222.161.213 is, however, completely right. If there's any consensus at the moment, it's against user 77.78.199.117. I would especially like to point out that the source from Oxford does not support what it has been claimed to support. It says nothing about Bosniaks at all (nothing more than about Bosnian Serbs or Bosnian Croats) and it says nothing about any people being the first inhabitants. Having a source is a good start, but we should never start to interpret sources. JdeJ (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you not notice that none of my proposed wording mentions anything about first inhabitants of Bosniaks vs others? I fixed that part long time ago. Bosniaks are Bosnians which you agreed on already, that means they are by default included in the findings. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

STOP now both of you! Refrain from reverting anymore, as it is quite obstructive, and you are both far beyond WP:3RR. Both of you are in violation of WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:TALK. I have filed a request that this page be protected so none of you can edit it for a while.

On topic now, this has been done countless times before, and all times it has been rebuked as false.

Bosniaks are South Slavs, plain and simple. Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs ALL are descendants of indigenous Balkan people and of Slav settlers. And to try to cut out the fact that they are Slav IS provocation, IS xenophobic, IS against the consensus, and most importantly, IS wrong.

I've had enough of these pseudo-scientific claims such as "Bosniaks aren't Slavs, they are Blond haired Aryans" or "Serbs are Asians". Stop this nonsense now, because it will never be accepted, because it is false.

Deal with it. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Frvernchanezzz : We cannot have so many genetic studies saying that Bosniaks have almost no Slavic genetic background and have all of the genetic wording claim primarily that Bosniaks have Slavic genetic background constantly, soon it will start looking too obvious. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop reverting please. The consensus is against you - that means until you gains support, you must not add that content. Furthermore, you have reverted about 9 times now - the Wikipedia rule is no more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, so you must stop. And changing it to say "a lesser extent Slav" is just as bad as what you were doing before. You have been warned on your talk page and here not to engage in revert wars, so please stop. Thanks. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that all these users who participated have the same gramatical pattern, so I don't think a consensus is in question, more likely abuse of Wikipedia. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple of observations:

1. the Oxford Journal on Molecular Biology and Evolution (2005) actually (1) does not talk about Bosniaks (only Bosnians) and (2) does not draw the conclusion that Bosniaks/Bosnians arrived before other Slavs. That is complete WP:OR. Please read the article's Conclusion. One should always be careful when interpreting primary sources/research.
2. all other reliable sources describe Bosniaks as South Slavic, hence Wikipedia should as well.
3. issues of biology/race and ethnicity/culture are difficult. Bulgarians are described as "South Slavic" although they are largely Turkic in origin and Polish people are described as "Western Slavic" although they certainly have many other "genetic" origins. Heck, the Croats and Serbs supposedly derive their names/origins from Iranian tribes. Basically, I believe we should stick to the common version here and leave the OR out.

RegardsOsli73 (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about Genetic origins in the Overview section which seem to contradict Oxford university findings about the I1b haplogroup in the Balcans region, specifically Bosnia where Bosniaks live. Because we know the genetic reality, there will inevitably be more genetic sources confirming each other, so it will be increasingly incoherent to Mention "Slavic mixture" first when it is the last in all "so far" genetic studies sources. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

However, the war is already lost by the Serb side where this subject at least now is open to people, as oposed to before where everybody was sure Sers/Croats/Bosnians were the same, with Religion being the only difference. We see the results of this where Serbs lost Kosovo as a result of everybody having access to not only Serb interpretation of history. Also because of the Balcans region being highlighted, people have studied everything related to that region and even analysed genetic origins of each side which already destroyed the Serb/Russian favoured arguments. The main question is, will we ever see a Serb favoured decision being made by Big powers again? It looks very unlikely due to dissrespect thrown by the Serb side of major historians and interests of Europe, in energy and so on. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Due to edit warring by IPs I've semi-protected this page for three days. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The facts as I know them

(1) The Bosniaks are Muslims by religion,
(2) Slavs by custom and tradition, and
(3) Illyrians by genome.

They are not one or the other; they are all three at once. What's more, they are different from the Serbs only in their religion. No matter what you call the Bosniaks, you cannot separate them from the Serbs ethnically or genetically.

But besides all that, genetics is a petty and trivial argument; the genetic composition of Europe fluctuates so much that it wouldn't be possible to say who came from where even if we wanted to. So the Bosniaks don't look like Russians; maybe by the intercession of the Turks whom they married from time to time they aren't even don't even look like Serbs (though God knows the Bosniaks are startled when one miscalls them Turks). All this ought to be remarked, but if you remark it in the introduction it is in bad taste and wrong, because you are rewriting history without any authority. --VKokielov (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Great set of POW comments by VKokielov. However, lets get back to non-Serb/non-Russian (factual) reality.

1) Bosniaks have every single Turkish quisine and cultural dance, and tradition, and therefore do not have Slavic culture.

2) Bosnia has 90% + Turkish/Austrian architecture. We know this where every Bosnian town has a 'Charshia' which is exclusively of Turkish engineering and planning.

3) Bosniaks have almost exclusively indigenous European genetic roots, and seem to be absolutely unrelated to Slavic genetic roots and the oposite is implied by this article.

4) Time is not in the favour of lies, they will start conflicting with other subjects sooner and later.

77.78.199.117 (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you insult me, I will not come back, and you will lose prestige by it. --VKokielov (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what the **** you are. Prvo ti nauci ruski, a poslije cemo ti i ja raspravljati o tome kakvo mi je glediste i odkud potice. Jebate odkud vama to? Zbog toga sto Putin je budala? Pa, jeste, budala je. Nije ni upola takva budala kakvi znaju biti vasi politici. Oni isti koji, umjesto raditi svoj posao, peru tebi glavu kako bi ti isao na Wikipediju gurati svoje glediste.

I ja mogu biti ostar. --VKokielov (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nema me vise ovđe, pričajte šta hoćete. --VKokielov (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation: Learn Russian first, and then you and I will talk about where my point of view comes from. Where the hell do you get that from? Because Putin is an idiot? Yes, he is an idiot, but not as much an idiot as your politicians are on occasion. The same politicians who brainwash you into pushing your agenda on Wikipedia instead of doing their jobs. I can be harsh, too. // I'm gone, do what you please. --VKokielov (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why can the Croats do it? Why can they give up their ecological zone for membership in the EU? Are they superhuman, or particularly advanced? No; they have understood that propaganda programs tend to usurp money from roads, schools, and hospitals... --VKokielov (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you on drugs? 77.78.199.117 (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes! How did you guess? --VKokielov (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

VKokielov is right, the Bosniaks are Slavs, mainly of Serbian, Croatian and/or Albanian origin, however, have intermarried, so Bosniaks also seem to have Turkish roots as well. Bosniaks ARE NOT Turks, Bosniaks only adopted several Turkish traditions, but still retain the old Slavic traditions, as well as several Albanian tradition. --Prevalis (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This could all be true if we ignored the genetic analysis and agreed that myths were actually true. It is amazing how the "Civilised" world has taken away Kosovo from the grip of Serbs on that basis and has started to arm them. I do however propose that Wikipedia is not a place for myths. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I will say what I said on hr:wiki. If you don't want to be a Slav, then quit talking a Slavic language. What? It's an insult to you, is it?

It's despicable. The Russians are a superpower, like the Americans -- in their politics. In their culture they are on par with Europe. It is an insult to us when you snub your lip at us. You know, I'm a Jew; if I started to rail at the Russians for everything they did to the Jews I would go on through the night. But that doesn't hinder me, who am three quarters of a Jew, or my father, who is pure-blooded, from speaking Russian and admiring Leo Tolstoy. And I have never been stirred to stick my nose up at the Russians because of it. --VKokielov (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What drugs? 77.78.199.117 (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You insulted me, I insulted you back. oko za oko --VKokielov (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The subject now is the type of drugs you're on. Not whether I've insulted you, as I obviously didn't. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record

It will be noticed that the argument here is not mainly about a genetic study, which proves God knows what, but about the definition of the word "Slav." Our adversary here claims that "Slav" is a designation of identity -- and a particular kind of identity: genetic identity. This is utter nonsense. According to this theory, the French are really Germans (Charlemagne and the Franks), the English are really Welsh and British, not to mention Scandinavian, and the Russians are Finns.

The proper definition for the ethnonym "Slav" is, in fact, ethnic and linguistic. If you would like me to show you an old source proving it -- I will do it without any trouble, and it will be a reputable source, too. --VKokielov (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Although you have admited to be on drugs, I'll still talk to you in hope that you calm down and stop acting in such a emotional manner.

I have just proved to you that culturally Bosniaks fail the mentioned Slavic culture test, via Baklawa, Burek, Bas-Carsia, Austrian architecture, Kebab, Belly-dancing, Turkish style music, Turkish traditional dance and morals and the list goes on for ever. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And we have proved to you that your argument does not stand, because you are NOT DEFINING what it means to be a Slav, and without that definition there is no debate. Please define "Slav" as you perceive it, and then give me a source for that definition. --VKokielov (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read above, then you will see that there is not a single aspect of the Slavic definition under which Bosniaks can be assigned the label "Slav" apart from language, even that is vague as Bosniaks have a huge number of Italian + Turkish words, such as Babo which is an old Roman word for father and so on.

Say, do you know what Spanish and Portuguese America is called? But why is it called that? Do the Mexicans, Argentinians, or Brazilians have anything in common with the Romans? Nothing -- nothing save the language.

There is an established habit of making the categories "speakers of Slavic languages" and "Slavs" equal. There is a reason for this. The affinity of the languages plays a part, but it is not the determining factor. The determining factor is that "Slav" is what we call an "umbrella term" -- a vague word. It is a name which reflects vaguely the origin of your language (which will allow you to out-learn, say, a Frenchman or an Arab in Russian no matter what your respective talents for languages are) and more concretely the fact that you speak it. It does not imply that you belong to any religion or nation. The Irish and Scots would be insulted if I confused them, and yet all the same they are Celts, one and the other. --VKokielov (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I am interested in exchanging opinions with a "drug-lord" at the moment, I'll call it a day. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nor am I interested in wrangling with you, who are childish and impolite. I have laid out my portion; whoever wants to take it into account can do so. --VKokielov (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bosniaks = Illyrians or Slavs

Just want to add my suggestion, as i am very interested in south slavs ethnology and early history. To state my "alliegence": my parents are Yugoslavs, but i was born in Australia, and am Australian (but mindful of my heritage). I harbour only warmth for all ex-Yugoslavs, but am sick of nationalists who try to spread total and utter bullshit. It is insulting to the rest of us.

People like "ancient land of Bosna" and other nationalists actually think they can come here and write fiction and think they can convince the learned community of their views (more like, wishes). Unfortunately, with all the hatred that is obviously still around, we have seen people attempting to create their own ancestry. Bosniaks, in this case, and lesser extent Croats, attempt to downplay their Slavic roots- referring to it as the dogma of Pan-Slavic communism. They distance themselves from it because of the Russo-Serb alliance, and the Orthodox Christianity that many Slavs are part of.

Bosnians (incl Bosniaks), Croats, Serbs, Montenegrins, Dalmatians, Hercegovinans, and every other "ethnic" group you want to come up with are all derived from the one people: that is, the western portion of South Slavs. In the 700s, the SLavs came from Ukraine, Carpathia, etc and settled the Balkans. There were some Illyrians left, yes, but they were absorbed by the Slavs, and took on their language and cultures (probably bi-directional). Yes, some scholars theorize, that some places like Montenegro and Bosnia may have retained a higher number of Illyrians, because they were mountainous regions. But the final result is the same. THe fusion produced south slavs. Since 700, they spoke nearly identical language. So if the Bosnians have 64% of haplogroup I compared to 40 % in Serbs- what does this mean ?? Is this a significant diference.? WHo says that haplogroup I even represents "illyrian ancestry". We cannot jump to conclusions.

The Illyrian people were absorbed by the Slavs. The slavs could have even been numerically inferior, but they Slavicized the Balkans. I do not think that the Slavs were even genetically homogenous to begin with. Ethnicity moves about, it is gained and lost by cultural, linguistic and military contact. There is no reason to beleive that Bosniaks for some reason have an ancestry that is special and distinct from their next door neighbours.

The Balkans Slavs remained seperated as individual tribes. No unified state was achieved. Therefore they were easily dominated by different culture: Franks and Rome in the northwest vs Bulgaria and Byzantine in the southeast. This caused different religious orientation and and different political histories. From this 1400 years of differing development, the different constituent south slavic peoples arose. But they all emerged from the same melting pot of people.

The issue is Bosniaks "roots" are less stablished. We cannot deny that, prior to 1100s, the region of Bosnia was ruled Serb and Croat nobles a lot of the time. THe early Slavic states were very volatile (in fact, they still are today). One year Serbia is somehwat of a power, then it collapses and seperates into individual provinces. THen Croatia would rise, only to go into civil war after the King dies. This was the entire pattern of history from 800-1100. So at times, Serbian princes ruled over many areas, including Bosnia. Thus there subjects (who were all a very similar people), were called Serbs. Whereas the same poeple 50 years later would be Croats because they were subject to the Craot king. Some form of Bosnian statehood occurred later, from 1180. THis is when the term Bosniak arose- the people ruled by the ban of Bosnia.

Today's Bosniaks (ie Bosnian Muslims) are the ones whose ancestors converted to Islam from the 1500s onwards. This is when they formed as a distinct culturo-religious group. Undesrtabdibly, Bosnian Serbs and Craots feel that they have monopolised the name, since it originally referred to the people of the medieval, christian state of Bosnia- not Muslim Slavs which did not exist at the time.

Although being muslim certainly imparts a cutural influence, we cannot say that Bosniaks are Turkish, even if there was interbreeding. THe numbers of Turks that would have had to settle in Bosnia to actually alter the gene pool would be in the millions. For all the differences in religion and history, South Slavs are all still are very similar.

Oh yeah- finally: they have Austrian architecture in Sarajevo ?? Please. So what does that have to do with anything !

Hxseek (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the above. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well written Hxseek! Even more, I'm not even sure I agree that the people living in the medieval Balkan states should/could be termed "Serbs", "Croats" or "Bosniaks"/"Bosnians" in the modern sense of the word. I think we too willingly accept modern states/nationalities exaggerated appropriation of distant historical states/peoples as their own in the interest of legitimacy and status. There is never a straight line betweeen a modern and historical peoples or nations. This is equally true of western as well as eastern Europe. It is just seems to be at its most extreme in the western and southern Balkans. CheersOsli73 (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but Hxseek, Osli73, Frvernchanezzz and some others are all one user, as can be clearly seen by the writing pattern. It's easy to fool Wikipedia of course, all you need is 3 ip's 3 emails and a header+cookie knowledge. Of course as soon as I get some spare time, I can easily surpas that by a factor of 100 or 1000 it doesn't matter. 77.78.197.84 (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Or in Greece. (Imagine a smug grin on my face). --VKokielov (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hxseek: If your Slavic sequence of events was right, then why do Bosniaks have so clearly almost no Slavic genetic pattern? New technology can/has/will expose any lies. Serbs have to stop living in the world of historical myths so famously highlighted by western media on the Kosovo seperation issue. 77.78.197.84 (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally, Bosniaks are more different genetically to Slavs than Greeks or Bulgarians or Serbs are to Turks, yet we say that Greeks are not Turks and Bosniaks are Slavs even if Bosniaks have every single Turkish custom and cultural pattern including only Turkish quisine for example. After all this can be seen by every foreighn dignitary in Bosnia, they don't need Wikipedia for that. Secondly, lets put together cultural markers which assign people to a culture, to see if Bosniaks have Slavic or non-Slavic culture.. 77.78.197.84 (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear anon, please read WP:OR. Basically, Wikipedia should report the commonly held view, we should not engage in original research, try to interpret original research or present fringe views as anything but. To be frank, I believe you are engaging in all of these. It's going nowhere. However, if you could present sources such as books, peer reviewed articles or other encyclopedias which present Bosniaks as non-Slavic, then that would be a different matter. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Cultural and Ethnic markers, such as cuisine to decipher what culture/ethnic group Bosniaks belong to

1) Cuisine - Cuisine_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.

It seems basically Turkish, end of that subject. 77.78.197.84 (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

2) Architecture. Architecture_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

It is also illuminated here what kind of architecture Bosnia has. http://fp.arizona.edu/mesassoc/Bulletin/bosnia.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mostar#Gallery <<<<<<<<< This to me does not look Slavic at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.198.147 (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

3) Language. Bosnian_language

I say Bosnian language is only around half Slavic, I'll go look for evidence if anybody disagrees. But remember language cannot be the only factor in cultural or ethnic conclusion due to other cases in the world such as Native Americans who speak English and the list goes on endlessly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.197.84 (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

4) Religous behaviour (for example Serb Orthodox may behave differently in their religous expression to some other Orthodox groups)
5) Genetics. (The thing that is the least capable of lies and POW)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I1b_(Y-DNA) <<< just read this, you will find out the truth, and look at the oxford uni images of that haplogroup, how it dramatically and surely drops as you move from bosniak areas. and another rock solid source confirms it here http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1181996 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.198.147 (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

6)

Lets make a big list here...(remember no side in reality has anything to lose by ACTUALLY getting to the truth here)
Remember to leave emotions out of this, as this is here to help us solve the conundrum, and stop the eternal arguing, if you change your mind about something, it is not a bad thing, but it more a brave thing. Also nobody will read your entire story if it's oversized, please make it simple, short and easy to read, the longer it is the more it looks false, as reality is usually very short and simple.

77.78.197.84 (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, please see my latest commment above about WP:OR. You're barking up the wrong tree.Osli73 (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's bring some Original Research in then, this is a perfect chance. I have tons about Cuisine to start with. 77.78.197.84 (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon, you have apparently misunderstood Wiki policy about original research. Please do read WP:OR and you will understand why your methodology/argumentation is not valid.Osli73 (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, as per WP:OR : "Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas;" However, my research is published and accepted, if you look at just the Wiki sections which mention Where each aspect of Bosniak culture/ethnicity comes from. 77.78.197.84 (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon:

1. pulling together your own evidence from "cuisine" and "architecture" and what not and drawing your own conclusions from that to prove ethnicity, is WP:OR
2. drawing your own conclusions from published sources, is WP:OR

Again, what you need are published sources supporting your claims, not sources which you interpret at supporting your claims. That is a crucial difference. As far as I can see, the Oxford Uni paper you refer to does not anywhere draw the conclusions you are making. Your interpretation of the findings of that paper is what constitutes WP:OR. CheersOsli73 (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

a) I don't understand why you are resourting to mythical interpretation of what I typed. I was clearly pointing out that Wikipedia already has consensus that Bosniak cuisine is closely linked to Turkish cuisine, which happens to be 100% reality and not a myth. If you want I'll look around for some cuisine books that confirm it too. b) I don't understand where the myth is when it clearly points out that Bosniaks (People who live inside Bosnian Boarders) have 64% of the genetic signature that is accepted in the Anthropological world to be unique to indiginous Balcans (European) people and the rest from Celts and Goths, there is no space for myth here unfortunately for Osli73. The great thing is somebody very close to me is in the final year of PhD which involves extensive work on gentic studies, and confirms this, the more you dismiss stuff you need to study for 8 years before you are qualified to dismiss it, the more people will ignore you in the future. 77.78.197.84 (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, although I suspect it is waste, I will explain why what you are doing is original research and not acceptable here. You have to find a reputable source which actually states that Bosniaks are not Slavs (or whatever it is you are suggesting). It is not sufficient to find evidence which you (through some kind of triangulation) interpret as evidence that Bosniaks are not Slavs. You cannot interpret evidence presented in an academic paper as evidence that Bosniaks are not (or only part) Slavs. You cannot draw your own conclusion from the fact that Bosniak cuisine apparently more Turkish than 'Slavic' etc.Osli73 (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't obviously draw a conclusion from one part, since you turned the "Slavic" concept into a myth, I challenged you to come up with all the things you can think of which might make a nation "Slavic". Via another nickname, you came up with Cuisine, and I obviously simply pointed you to a Wikipedia article which admits that Bosniak cuisine is closely linked with Turkish cuisine. It is unfortunate that old Yugoslavia was taken seriously once upon a time, and their interpretation of history still remain, for example some reputable sources still think that Muslims are an ethnic group in Balcans, which is like saying that Russians are a religion just because Yeltsin said it to be. Of course things are changing, so.. one day Tito and Yugoslavia will be considered absolute liars instead of just partial liars and fascists. However as we know fortunately one positive thing about the 1992 war was that the world has studied this region and obviously that includes ignoring everyones interpretation of history and going for genetic evidence since everyone obviously will simply lie, hence we see Kosovo seperation, and failure of great serbia project. 77.78.197.84 (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So according to Mr Anon, I am Chinese because I eat chinese food. OK. Hxseek (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that's my point, You're not Slavic if you only eat Pig meat and suffer a heart attack before the age of 50. Which is what Osli73 seem's to have suggested when he found Cuisine as a cultural marker 77.78.198.147 (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough of your rabble and pseudo-science. Hxseek (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We have to remove POW in genetic related texts here is what the world accepted view is: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1181996 note "It reaches its highest incidences in Croatia (31%) and Bosnia (40%), encompassing almost 80%–90% of I (table 1). In western Europe". 77.78.198.115 (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Genetics

Everybody in the Anthropological world accepts that http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/R1a_large_RG.jpg is the haplogroup associated with Slavs, yet it is non-existant in Bosniaks, as can be seen there. So why mention 'Slav' when talking about Bosniak genetic roots? Bosniaks have the totally unrelated haplogroup http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/I1b_large_RG.jpg which is more related to British, Germans, Swedes than Slavs as all three peoples have the haplogroup I (I1a, I1b, I1c). This is not Original Research, this is accepted in all Genetic articles as you can see in the images. 77.78.198.115 (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User Academic_Challenger, has suggested that pubmed a .gov scientific database PubMedCentral is not a trusted source and that I cannot use their quote. Academic_Challenger explain please in detail. 77.78.198.115 (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I should have been more clear in my comment in the page history. It is a trusted source, but it seems to be contradicted by a reference that is already there. We need more talk page discussion to determine if such a major change like you are making should be implemented. Academic Challenger (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Which reference contradicts it?, why can't we use Pubmed's quote? I'll be back tomorrow, please provide as much detail as possible using your apparent knowledge which says that R (Slavic) haplogroup family is the same as I (Bosniak, German, Swedish) haplogroup family 77.78.198.115 (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about the Coon book and the Marjanovic article. I am not an expert on ethnic studies so I could be misinterpreting it, but if they actually agree with each other, the PubMed quote is not needed since it just makes the article more confusing. Academic Challenger (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, you have missinterpreted it, just press ctrl+f and look for word Slav in the Marjanovic article to make it short for you. You won't find it, as pubmed and marjanovic agree. Also marjanovic article is less extensive studie as you can see while pubmed is used by most other genetic articles on Wikipedia. 77.78.198.115 (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)