Talk:Bosniaks

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

"Turks"

paragraphs #1 and #2

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

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

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

reflist

(references 3. and on)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My response

OK, let us see some bare facts:

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

For Sarajevo [2] [3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identification of Bosniaks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bosnian names of Hungarian origin?

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

Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Map

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

Day of Mosques

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

This article about so called "Bosniaks" is disaster.

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

Question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Image

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