Talk:Bosnian language

Which one to use?

Just a question that requires a neutral and non-politicized answer.

There is a man named Hüseyin Pasha Boljanić who was from the Ottoman Bosnia Eyalet (province), but was born in what is now Montenegro. It is claimed that he was of a Bosniak origin (not sure what that even means when you're born circa 1500). Now, his name was historically known as Husein-paša Boljanić in the area, not just among "Bosniaks." What should this alternate name be specified as?

Should the intro paragraph start like:

• Hüseyin Pasha Boljanić (Turkish: Bodur Hüseyin Paşa, Bosnian: Husein-paša Boljanić or Husein Boljanić)

or

• Hüseyin Pasha Boljanić (Turkish: Bodur Hüseyin Paşa, Serbo-Croatian: Husein-paša Boljanić or Husein Boljanić)

We need an outside consensus on this. I'm not from the area, so I only have an outsider's point of view.

Thanks!

Ithinkicahn (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say go with SC. That's the language, and as you note, Bosnian had not been developed yet. Even if he were born today, I'd argue for SC as the actual language. To me, having a specifically Bosnian transcription is like having a specifically American transcription rather than simply using English. — kwami (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ehm, had not been developed yet? Not sure what that is supposed to mean. "Serbo-Croatian" is historically known as Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian, Slavonian etc. These are its ethnic and historic names which are not simply 'politic constructs'. Actually to be perfectly correct, the term Serbo-Croatian is. No language was obviously standardized back then if that is what you mean by developed. Anyway completely confusing input. @Ithinkicahn: Newsflash, Bosniaks were not invented in post-Yugoslavia, believe it or not. Ignorance is truly sad. P.S. I wouldn't either consider 'kwami' a "neutral observer" him being Croat and one of the fiercest proponents around of the term Serbo-Croatian. No offence.Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 04:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

LOL! I'm not just a Croat: I'm a Bosniak Croat Serb Muslim Hindu Jewish Chinese African homosexual homophobe. But I won't admit to any of those things, which means I'm hiding my true identity. Funny how when I disagree with someone, that's proof that I'm whoever they hate. But hate is not an argument. — kwami (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Your attempt to attribute hatred to Praxis Icosahedron and laughing to his comment is not more constructive than his attempt to attribute ethnicity to you. The point of his comment was that you are not neutral observer requested by Ithinkicahn because you are involved in this SC dispute, which can be easily confirmed by looking at Talk:Serbo-Croatian.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That's stupid. This was not a request for an uninvolved editor to resolve a POV dispute. This was a request for an opinion. And an opinion is an opinion, no matter what it is or who agrees with it.

And I can hardly help it if he made me laugh. His response really was funny. — kwami (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy you're amused, this is a kinder-garden after all isn't it? The point is you're not an uninvolved editor regardless of what your "self-perception" might be, shall we say. Yes, being Croat or not is less important, but it can hardly be considered an advantage when someone is looking for an "outside" opinion ;) Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 15:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

There was no Bosniak/Croatian/Serbian/Montenegrin language prior to 1990s, when "ethnic" languages were invented. Ethnic construct is by definition a political construct. Nation-states that equated language with the people who spoke it are an invention of the 19th century; before that they didn't exist as such. You can't retroactively project modern notions of language and ethnicity centuries before present. Unless there is concrete evidence that Hüseyin Pasha Boljanić declared himself Bosniak, or is embraced as a Bosniak by modern historians, he shouldn't really be classified as such, and neither should his language. Regarding his name, I don't see a problem as being labeled as Bosnian, if he is exclusively claimed by Bosniaks. When there is a dispute it should be SC because of NPOV. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're completely confusing the concept of ethnicity and nationhood. The recorded 'ethnic' historic names of the language are Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian, which also became "national" names after the 19th century. There is no one "retroactively projecting modern notions of language and ethnicity centuries before present" here. Hüseyin Pasha Boljanić was a Bosnian Muslim and per definition a Bosniak since we are speaking of one and the same ethno-religious community. I actually like your point about nation-states since it is valid for Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs alike. Being any of those three in 16th century did not have the same meaning as it does today since the concept of nationhood. However, we don't create separate articles for ethnic groups pre- and post-19th century, do we? If the man is Muslim and described as Bosnian in sources he is obviously a Bosnian Muslim and a South Slav: the definition of Bosniak. If scholarly sources tend to use 'Bosnian' over 'Bosniak' in this circumstance it is only due its more wide-spread usage and less confusing character in the English language. There is no historic rationale to consider Bosnian Muslims of the 21st century a different community than Bosnian Muslims of the 16th century. If so, the Catholic population of 16th century Croatia ought not be described as Croats, which is absurd. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 15:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Just one more thing which we seem to agree on; the languages/names indicated in a history article should reflect the historiographies involved or its "claims" if you like. History ultimately deals with specific spheres of culture. This man's life took place in the context of Bosnian history, and if some should claim it also part of Serbian or Montenegrin history then by all means include those names as well. However, there is no unified "Serbo-Croatian" historiography with the exception of a few decades of Yugoslavia. Thus, it is not purely a linguistic matter, far from. It is about conveying the involved spheres of culture. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 16:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

@Praxis Icosahedron: As I said, you are projecting modern notions of ethnicity and nationhood back into history where they didn't exist. The only reason why Boljanić could be classified as Bosniak today is along religious grounds. Same goes for Croats and Serbs. Those ethnic terms with modern-day strictly defined legal semantics where invariably used as geographical designations back in the day. No we don't have separate articles, but we do emphasize in existing articles how the ethnogenesis evolved over the ages. Ethnic communities weren't as strong then as they were now so this absence of self-identity doesn't warrant separate treatment, but that doesn't prove that they did consider themselves Bosniaks/Serbs/Croats/whatever. Serbo-Croatian is just a term used for the language, it has nothing to do with historiography. That being said, I have no problem with Bosnian being used as a language name, but if Boljanić is also claimed by Serbs or Croats as well it makes no sense to repeat his identically spelled name for X times, and Serbo-Croatian should suffice. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No I am not. Nations were formed based on underlying ethnicities. As such nationhood is in many ways the penultimate form of ethnicity. According to your logic King Tomislav was not a Croat and should only be defined as a historical person who lived on the territory of early Croatia. Boljanic is classified as a Bosniak not only by religion, but also by language, geographical origin, biological roots and cultural identity; i.e. the corner-stones of any ethnicity. It does indeed have to do with historiography since Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia constitute separate historic entities and should be treated as such. "Serbo-Croatian" does not take this into account. I don't know if Boljanic is claimed by Serbs and Croats as well, but it's no secret Serb and Croat nationalists claim the entire Bosniak nation as converted Serbs or Croats ("poturice"), which I suspect is also the reason we are having this baseless discussion. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 18:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No he was not a Croat. He is embraced as a "Croat" retroactively by nationalist historians (and that's a citable fact). Think of nationalist histories as romantic fairy tales, fulfilling our-place-in-the-world desires by small peoples. Since Wikipedia is not paid by governments, there is no reason to serve as a propaganda outlet for them, and NPOV policy requires us to take universal history approach. There is no inherent "ethnic affiliation" in one's language, religion, region of birth or DNA - that you truly believe that there is only shows how deep does the brainwashing go. We can only categorize people as Croats/Serbs/Jedi on the basis of 1) their own testimony as such 2) classification by "respected authorities" (historians etc.) Projecting back modern notions of nationhood thousands of years back won't work. We can pretend it does, but deep down we all know it's a lie.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

So with regard to "2)", any respected authority (e.g. historian) who describes Tomislav as Croat must be brainwashed and ought not to be trusted? Your kinda in contradiction here, one one hand writing Projecting back modern notions of nationhood thousands of years back won't work., and on the other We can only categorize people as Croats/Serbs/Jedi on the basis of..2) classification by "respected authorities" (historians etc.). So it is acceptable to be brainwashed as long as you're "respected"? Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't take opinions of academicians uncritically. Particularly not the ones from Balkans which are all paid by respective governments to disseminate the national version of "Truth". One ruler is according to one source Croatian, according to other Slavic, according to some other nothing specific, just "ruler". The notion of nation-state was invented in the 19th century, and it's laughable to assume that the term Croatian meant anything other than "inhabitant of the region that was by some called Croatia" thousand years ago. Ditto for Bosnia and Serbia. Sorting these people as Bosniaks, Croats or whatever must be put in the context of contemporary historiography, and not as something that those people themselves proclaimed to be, which they didn't and couldn't have. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you on this one. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 16:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ivan. What you have said about Boljanić being a 'Bosniak' only in today's sense (being Muslim from Bosnian territory) is indeed true but this modern approach to past characters and entities runs very deep on Wikipedia. What you have to remember is that prior to the rise of 19th century nationalism across European populations, the entire attitude to ethnicity was wholly different. Fluid as it is now with people switching one census to the next and even declaring themselves differently from their siblings or both their parents, in those days people from this region could have identified by half a dozen different ethnicities, your neighbour with three of yours and two of another; it must have been like playing Bingo or the lottery to find someone the same as you! :) Yet we accept, Catholics - Croat, and Orthodox followers - Serb, especially from Bosnia. The Bosniak view firmly acknowledges that the nation is a third Slavic group to the established and undisputed Croats and Serbs, not members of these nations who happen to practice Islam. It also observes the dominance of Islam to be the result of non-Muslims reassigning themselves Croat or Serb depending on faith. Croats and Serbs on the other hand state that the Bosniaks are their people (each claiming "ours") who converted to Islam. In truth, there had to be a bit of everything, converts, people changing, etc. Would you believe that many of the ancestors of today's Croats and Serbs actually called themselves Serbocroats when the language was new? That's how they came up in censa. Would you believe that non-Slavic nations themselves whilst assimilating adopted Serbocroat nation first before later breaking off with the faith. And would you believe that when in the 19th century there was the ethno-religious consistency for Serbs and Croats, many Bosniaks actually differentiated by calling themselves Turks, even so, it was never a claim that they were the same Turks as the Turkish speakers. This is why it is best to accept modern policies on historical subjects. --Zavtek (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Striking out sockpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Spoken vs. used?

Used sounds strange, could we have spoken instead? Languages, whether standardized or not, are spoken and written whichever way you look at it. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The terms are synonymous. However, given that the whole notion of "Bosnian language" is a result of imagination, the article would make it sounds that Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks all speak different languages, which is of course wrong and misleading. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The South Slavic language spoken on the territory of Bosnia is historically known by its Bosnian name. The first dictionary in 1631 was authored by a man who clearly declared himself Bosniak and his language as Bosnian (not Serbo-Croatian). Portraying it as the result of recent imagination is extremely provocative (in which case the same could be said for Serbian or Croatian). If you'd been even slightly attentive to other users you'd realize that no one is arguing these languages as separate or distinct, which is however not to diminish the historic names "Bosnian", "Serbian" and "Croatian" as any less "authentic". Serbo-Croatian is just an arbitrary term applied to a language shared by several ethnicities and that term was modeled on nationalists of the 1800s. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Regional notion of Bosnian is not the same as "Bosnian language" invented in the 1990s. Bosnian language is the standard form of Serbo-Croatian used by Bosniaks = Bosnian Muslims. Bosnian Croats and Serbs use standard Croatian and Serbian, and call Bosnian language its more fitting name - Bosniak language (bošnjački in Serbo-Croatian). You're mixing various terms. There is no continuity between medieval attestations of the term Bosnian which was abundantly used by non-Muslim population, and modern-day Bosnian language which is defined along religious grounds. Similarly there is no continuity between the e.g. Croatian as attested in the Chakavian Baška tablet and Law codex of Vinodol, and modern-day Croatian which is based on Neoštokavian. I know it's hard to come to terms with reality sometimes but such are facts. Medieval Bosnia was not exclusively Muslim and NPOV policy requires us to present the issue in a neutral manner, not distort history to fit a particular agenda (which would in your case be Medieval Bosnian and modern-day Bosnian = one and the same, with Serbian/Croatian "splitting" from the same ethnolinguistic matrix somewhere along the road). Sorry, it doesn't add up. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Being Muslim or not is irrelevant, the Bosniak/Bosnian identity does not exclusively rest on religious attributes but is committed to a Bosnian-based identity that would ultimately also include Christian Bosnians (which for various reasons came to declare themselves as Serbs and Croats in the latter half of the 19th-century). Bosnia is not just a "region", but a historical geopolitical entity with its own identity and culture. A Catholic Bosnian has more cultural and "ethnic" similarities with his Muslim Bosnian neighbor than he does with a Croatian (religion notwithstanding). Bosnians of all three faiths are primarily Bosnians and everything else (through the wits and whims of their neighbors) only secondarily. The points brought up by you are unfortunately pervaded with the (often mischievous) misconceptions commonly found among these neighbors. Bosniaks are an ethnic group greater than the sum of their religion, and the stance of the overwhelming majority of Bosniaks (scholars and common people alike) is not that Bosnia is or should be "Muslim" but Bosnian. In fact, such assertions are in line with available historic records and attempts to deemphasize Bosnia's distinct heritage by resorting to the usual "region" argument is beyond the pale. It is also futile, reductionist and can be applied to Serbia and Croatia to an equal extent. So no, Ivan, the most fitting name for the Bosnian language is Bosnian and Serb and Croat nationalist bids to shatter and appropriate Bosnia should bear no relevance to its semantics. I certainly do not expect the Bosniaks (or anyone else) to "adjust" the name of their language only to appease nationalists who are eager to shatter a country for which they have no historic or moral grounds. And may I once more kindly remind the both of us, wikipedia is not a forum. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 17:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Standard languages are often more written than spoken, or at least better defined in writing than in speech, so "used" is probably the better term here. — kwami (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually this makes sense. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 01:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent corruptions and blunders by user:Taivo and user:Kwamikagami

This is not an invitation for discussion but a request that you should stop engaging in POV-pushing by removing sourced reliable content. Kwami has called the source "sub-par" since it doesn't fit his agenda and user Taivo has claimed that the term is not of convenience although the source clearly says it is. The source is published by Britannica educational and the same assertion is found in the article on Serbo-Croatian in the Britannica encyclopedia [1]. Should this Wikipedia-breaching impudence continue I will take the matter to the noticeboard since there is not much to discuss, Kwami is calling a highly reliable source "sub-par" and Taivo claims it to be "wrong" by not adhering to his private view. All of this because they are determined to present Serbo-Croatian as a definite term. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

My god, this is amazing. Perhaps you should review WP guidelines for sourcing. For one, 2ary sources are preferred; 3ary sources are considered sub-par. As for this not being an invitation for discussion, any posting on a discussion page is an invitation for discussion. Your intolerance for POVs you disagree with is not appropriate for a collaborative project like WP. You're welcome to take your complaint to ANI, though refusing to discuss things because "there is not much to discuss" is unlikely to win you much sympathy.

I see you added the note on Dec 29.[2] Your assertion, your responsibility to justify. When you made that edit, you were informed that it might be modified or deleted by others, so you can hardly complain when that happens. — kwami (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No need to call upon God here. In my opinion you are just seeking to justify a miserably failed attempt at implementing POV. The source, which might as easily be linked to the EB as demonstrated, is fine by all standards and any discussion to the contrary is absurd. Also, no need to justify a reliable source that speaks for itself. If anything, you ought to justify your removal and apparently continued opposition of reliably sourced material that elucidates the term; but as we've seen, the justification is so far beyond the pale. In theory, I am always willing to discuss but preferably with editors that operate on healthy grounds. Your actions so far have not been convincing. The term is of convenience and used to refer to the forms of speech employed by Bosniaks and etc. The term is not definite. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Issue no. 2: quoting

Quoting is actually not a necessity in this circumstance as long as the material added substantially retains the meaning of the source material, obviously. The phrasing used by Britannica places the Bosniaks in "other South Slavic groups" which is fine but awkward for the primary topic of this article (the standard language of the Bosniaks). Rephrasing the text from used to refer to the forms of speech employed by Serbs, Croats, and other South Slavic groups (such as Montenegrins and Bosniaks) to used to refer to the forms of speech employed by Bosniaks, Serbs, Croats, and other South Slavic groups such as Montenegrins is hardly a corruption of the original meaning but a valid adaptation to the scope of this article. However, I understand that some might be touchy to have the "ethnic supremacy" of the Serbs and Croats sapped by, God forbid, having the Bosniaks placed first. Sorry, though, this kind of nationalist sentiment has no place here. Also I would prefer to cite the EB web entry instead as it is more easily verifiable than Austria, Croatia, and Slovenia. Britannica Educational Publishing. 2013. p. 143 (which actually lifts the assertion in question from the S-C entry in the EB). Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 02:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a WP:POINTY edit designed to push your POV, not a balanced reflection of the sources. And it's superfluous: if people don't know what SC is, that's what we have the link for. We don't need to add your cherry-picked POV to every article. Yes, it's a term of convenience, as the language has no unitary name. But "forms of speech" suggests that it isn't a language, and "other South Slavic groups", now that you've messed with the explanation, makes it sound like it's spoken by Bulgarians.

You're pushing its inclusion, so you need to show that it improves the article. Whining about conspiracies against the Truth just makes you sound like a zealot. — kwami (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Kwami, I'm sure you spent a great deal of time making up that self-centered convenient "argument" of yours but it has no relevance whatsoever to anything of what has been said or done so far. The "WP:POINTY" bit is even unworthy a reply. Your conduct is a case study of how arguments are being made up only in order to advance a certain POV. The note is an overview that explains something which is not immediately apparent otherwise, not even in the S-C article because of obvious neutrality issues there which you ought to be happy I have chosen to ignore. Serbo-Croatian is a term of convenience (arbitrary if you like) used to refer to the forms of speech employed (or shared if you like) by several ethnicities. And it is not a definite term per the "logic" that the language inherently belongs to the Serbs and Croats (with Bosniaks and Montenegrins merely being offshoots of the former). A highly reliable tertiary source as the Encyclopedia Britannica is exactly what's optimal for this kind of overview: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. This as opposed to the pushing of cherry-picked secondary sources by yourself for years. Also, I'll make sure to notify the Britannica of the confusion their phrasing creates with you. I seriously doubt we will make headway though. Allow me to quote Ronelle Alexander, Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, a Grammar: With Sociolinguistic Commentary, Univ of Wisconsin Press (2006), p. xvii: Some claim that Serbo-Croatian still exists as a unified language and that to call the successor systems separate languages is a political fiction required by the existence of separate states, while others claim that there was never a unified language and that the naming of one was likewise a political fiction required by the existence of a single state. Most thinking falls somewhere between these two poles. No need to explicate which pole you belong to and so eagerly advance without any concern for NPOV. Oh, and yeah, let me know when your done with bashing Britannica. I have wiser things to do. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 15:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Praxis Icosahedron: You're pushing one particular point of view as a universal fact. That "Bosnian language" existed in times of Kulin Charter, bosančica and has anything to with the 16th century dictionaries is a point of view advocated by some Bosniak linguists. Croatians and Serbian linguists generally do not acknowledge that, and neither do foreigners. You're very keen to establish some kind of "deep" cultural continuity in order to legitimize Bosnian. However we must present facts as bare facts, and opinions as opinions. Cherry-picked sources that mention Bosnian language without their authors knowing what they're talking about don't matter. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

What a pleasant visit. You're discussing matters which are of no relevance to the discussion at hand, and most of it is wrong, actually being your own take and not that of some supposed "foreigners". You're just a biased editor and a nationalist from the region putting words in my mouth in order to discredit and misrepresent me. I have nothing more to add and will not be responding to simple provocations as those of Ivan any longer. I am sourcing Britannica and that is the end of it. Shall we just take this to the noticeboard right away? I am in no mood to waste time with a ragtag of POV pushers. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 18:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Uskufi's dictionary cannot be official dictionary of Bosnian because Bosnian language didn't officially exist until the 1990s. Charter of Kulin has nothing to do with modern Bosnian and is also claimed by Serbs and Croats. The source for Charter of Kulin being written in Bosnian is Miklošič reprint in Monumenta Serbica. We can mention that some Bosniak linguists claim that modern Bosnian is a continuation of literary tradition that has its roots in bosančica-written documents, but that has too be sourced to them specifically because it's not generally accepted. Feel free to involve whomever you like, what I speak is facts, and your edits are simply POV-pushing. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If you have to re-phrase the content then re-phrase it instead of blanking. I have already filed a complaint at ANI. The claim that "Uskuf's dictionary has nothing to do with modern Bosnian" proves your POV-agenda. Svein Mønnesland, professor of Slavic languages at the University of Oslo and the leading Slavist in Norway, states the following in Norewegian:– I dag er det de politiske aspektene som gjør boken mest aktuell. Den viser at bosnisk språk har en lang tradisjon, sier Mønnesland. (Today the politic aspects make the dictionary most topical. It shows that the Bosnian language has a long tradition, Mønnesland says)[3]. But he probably knows nothing, right? Your view, and not that of "foreigners", is Croat nationalist POV. I'm adding a neutrality tag to the article and we'll hash this out at the ANI. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Svein Mønnesland is on the payroll of the Bosnian Academy so yes it's just a non-neutral POV. We can attribute it to him and that's it. However native sources by codifiers of Bosnian would be preferred (Halilović, Jahić et al.). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy arguments, really? How old-fashioned. Please provide sources. Tomasz Kamusella, The politics of language and nationalism in modern Central Europe, Palgrave Macmillan: The codifiers of the Bosnian language refer to Bosancica (local type of Cyrillic influenced by Glagolitic) and to the tradition of writing in Slavic with the use of the Arabic script (Arebica) as the roots of the contemporary Bosnian language.. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure they do, but that's just their opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Bosančica and Arebica fell out of use centuries ago, and standard Bosnian was basically created by decree as a continuation of Bosnian form of Serbo-Croatian. Most of the written corpus of Bosančica was not even written by Bosniaks. And the connection with Kulin's Charter is just laughable. Once again: There is no problem with mentioning other opinions, but it has to be in a neutral manner. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

So Bosniaks are not also Bosnians? They are an alien element with no descent from medieval Bosnia? Not sure I'm following. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Modern Bosnian language is the standard form of Serbo-Croatian used by Bosniaks. Bosančica-written documents written by Catholics in Bosnia are considered as a part of Croatian language history by Croatian linguists along ethnic/religious grounds. (open any book on the history of Croatian language and see for yourself) Whenever there is a conflict of opinions it has to be written in a neutral manner citing whose opinions are being represented, and not as facts without contexts. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Lol are you seriously invoking Croat nationalism and hegemony in Bosnia, thought that rubbish was discredit ages ago!?! Its crown jewel Herzeg-Bosnia was shot down miserably. Croatian interest in Bosnia is pseudo-science as is the Croat ethnicity of Bosnian Catholics. Bosniaks at least have authentic ties to Bosnia than some "fathers of the nation" in Zagreb. What do you think personally, is it all just Croatian? Be honest now. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Politics and Herzeg-Bosna is irrelevant. Catholic Bosnian literature (Matija Divković etc.) is considered as a part of Croatian language history by Croatians whether you like it or not. I don't know how Halilović and co. treat it though, sine I don't have access to their books. But if they do - it's just one POV that needs to be carefully put into context, and not as a fact as you're so keen to do it. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, in such case, since Bosniaks were part of non-Muslim medieval Bosnia before embracing Islam, it should follow that they are merely converted Croats in the minds of those Croat scholars. That's actually worse than good old plain POV, it's chauvinism. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Before Islamification, they adhered to Christianity (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Bosnian Church - whatever), or were pagans/atheists (possibly, but unlikely after 10th century). Whether you make of them Slavs, Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks or Martians doesn't matter, or whether such classification is chauvinistic or not. The first are facts, the second is arbitrary cultural assignment which is inherently just one POV. We need to summarize all relevant opinions in a NPOV manner and not champion "truth". The real truth is, incidentally, none of those major POVs which are mostly just fabricated nationalist propaganda (ask Mønnesland ‎what language did he teach before 1990 and under what name did he refer to it). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Actually I don't even care anymore. Let's just end it here. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Same for the note you keep pushing, which serves no purpose but to suggest that SC is not really a language. You will need to involve someone else if you want to get consensus for such biases. — kwami (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The note is referenced to the Britannica, the most scholarly of encyclopedias. I'm sorry if it collides with your POV. Wikipedia is not a democracy so it doesn't matter how many biased editors you manage to pile up against me. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That note is unnecessary, because unlike Britannica we have separate articles on both Bosnian and Serbo-Croatian. If the reader wants to know what the word Serbo-Croatian means on Wikipedia, or can mean in English language, all he has to do is click the wikilink. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Britannica has no separate individual articles for Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian at all. What are you talking about? Bias in the style of "I think it's unnecessary so let's get rid of it" just won't do. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to yours "I think it's necessary so it would do?" --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a RS saying so, where's yours saying it's not? All we have is your opinion. Doesn't count for much. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of sources but whether that note has its place there or not. The article Serbo-Croatian already deals with that. So your note serves no purpose. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm definitely not satisfied with the way the S-C article presents itself. It's way too slanted towards one of the poles mentioned by Alexander. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If you have issues with that article bring it up there. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

And so I shall~in due time. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like...

To ask user JorisvS not to delete edits by users because deleting content with reference is vandalism. ;) --LightWiki91 (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Uskufi's dictionary and Charter of Kulin

There is no problem mentioning them but they have to be carefully contextualized. Something along the line "Modern Bosnian language proponents trace back the Bosnian language literary tradition to Uskufi's dictionary, or early vernacular monuments such as Charter of Ban Kulin." Modern Bosnian language as such was invented out of thin air in the 1990s together with modern Croatian and Serbian, and such opinions merely represent a particular POV and not absolute truths. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Cyrillic

@Surtsicna: Even if we take Alexander [4] as the ultimate source, she says that Bosnian ... officially use both alphabets. Outside of the Serbian entity of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bosnians almost always use Latin alphabet. Within that entity, ... both alphabets are regularly used. This leaves some precision to be desired, but obviously has in mind Bosnians, not Bosniaks. However, on page xviii, she goes on to say Now, Croatian and Bosnian use the Latin alphabet exclusively, while Serbian uses both freely. I can quote you several books which use similar phrasing; for example, Comrie has it The Cyrillic alphabet continues in use among Slavonic peoples of traditional Orthodox religion: [...] Serbian variety of Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian, while the others use the Latin alphabet. I think it's fairly obvious that Bosnian uses Cyrillic pretty much only de jure and for historical reasons (corpus of Bosnian literature from SFRY period). Maybe "marginal" was not the best choice of words, but Cyrillic, if mentioned, do need some sort of adjective in the lead to stress its secondary role, per WP:DUE. No such user (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The historical reasons go back much further than the SFRY period; correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Latin script was hardly prominent before the late 19th century. The earliest surviving Bosnian documents were written in Cyrillic, including one particularly famous charter... Isn't one is considered semi-literate at best if not proficient in both scripts? Students are required to learn and use both. Surtsicna (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, but still, Cyrillic is almost entirely in passive use today, right? You will hardly find a recent book or magazine printed in Cyrillic, or its usage in media. We should stress that in the lead somehow and explain in more detail in the text, as the two scripts are not on equal standing in practical terms. No such user (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Didn't we have this exact same discussion at Talk:Bosnian language/Archive 4? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"Official" Dictionary

"Official" implies a government sanctioned designation. Since there was no "Bosnia" in the 17th century, there could be no "official" designation for a dictionary. --Taivo (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Neo-nationalist agenda

This article is written with a clear neo-nationalist agenda in mind, meaning that a new nation that started to officially exist in the 90's invented a new name for a well codified Eastern Herzegovinian dialect which is not only spoken by its authentic speakers the Serbs but also by the Muslims of Bosnia as well as a large portion of Croats. American is not a standard language, English is, in the same manner as Swiss and Austrian are not standard languages but German is. For the standard Serbo-Croatian language the Eastern Herzegovinian dialect was used as a literally basis, since it is the most wide-spread. Muslim Bosnians do not have a separate language other than the very same dialect which they use as well, the standard language however is/was called Serbo-Croatian. Since Croatian also uses other dialects than the Eastern Herzegovinian dialect like Kajkavian and Chakavian, the so called "Bosnian" language actually falls into the category of the Serbian language, since it has only one literally basis namely the Eastern Herzegovinian dialect which the Bosnian Muslims also use exclusively. The correct classification would be Bosnian Serbian, like Austrian German or American English, however like stated before, this article is written with a clear neo-nationalist agenda in mind (as in inventing a new national identity) rather than the analysis of actual facts.