Talk:Bosniaks

Number of Bosniaks in diaspora

I think the problem here is that in the "regions with significant populations" all Bosnian diaspora is counted as Bosniaks. This is simply a big mistake. There is plenty of Serbs and Croats from Bosnia that are counted amongst Bosnians in Austria, Switzerland and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.77.61.142 (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

HELP

How do I merge Konjevići with Konjević Polje? They are two articles about the same village. The official name of the village is Konjević Polje.--Plavipodrinjac (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Famous individuals

It's virtually Islam that makes someone a Bosniak. A lot of the descendants of the pre-Islamic population of Bosnia now identify as Croats. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"It's virtually Islam that makes someone a Bosniak"

No, it isn't.

"A lot of the descendants of the pre-Islamic population of Bosnia now identify as Croats"

So what? They didn't identify themselves as Croats during the time they lived. Rüstem Pasha would probably identify himself as Bosniak if he lived today, but that doesen't mean that he actually was a Bosniak.

Edits by Slovenski Volk

Nope, let's face it, you were relieved from a long-standing topic ban on the Balkans only today, tread lighlty! Your first edit corresponded to tendentious POV, venturing one-sidedly into infected polemy. The second was a lot better in terms of NPOV (apparently you do know better than your first edit), but still irrelevant to the section at hand. The matter of Bosnia, the DAI and Caslav's Serbian realm is already adressed in its proper context witihin the "Middle Ages" section of the article. Please expand as necessary. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

it wasn't tendentious, rather I thought it was being one-sidedly left out. I see it ismentioned later, albeit with some chronological erratum- which I will fix (Petar had expanded to Bosnia as early as late 9th century). But that it's mentioned in one section is good enough. I agree it doens;t need elaboration / duplication elsewhere. (BTW im not Serbian. )Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC).

Point is, it was "left out" with good reason. That particular section is on the etymology of the "Bosniak" ethnonym and not by whom and when Bosnia was ruled (with all the necessary polemy it entails). As for the "Middle Ages" section, there is no "chronological erratum" as far as I can tell (the dates are cited from a reliable source). The issue is again rather relevance. Gojniković's expansion into what probably corresponded to the valley of the river Bosna occured before any unequivocal reference to any entity known as Bosnia. In other words, Gojniković expanded into geopolitically uncharted territory, and as such finds little relevance in a section which understandably commences from a point from where we can actually talk about a "Bosnia" in a purely historiographic sense. Whether Gojniković, and other Serb or non-Serb rulers had sway over Bosnia before that point is irrelevant. The region in question has been inhabited by modern man for at least 40.000 years and presumably ruled by countless rulers before it was finally documented as "Bosnia" in the DAI. Apparently, considering these circumstances, Gojniković's rule over Bosnia is relevant primarily from a Serbian perspective of Bosnian history (which is also the reason it is included in the article on Bosnian Serbs) since it pinpoints the earliest documented instance of Serbian rule on Bosnian territory, but much less so from a Bosniak (or for that matter Croat) perspective. In addition, your insistence on writing out the name of a chapter of a book which is already beyond obscure is peculiar while also unnecessarily opening a Pandora's box of polemy based around conflicting interpretations of that chapter. For the scope of this article, it is well and enough to conclude that Bosnia was under Caslav's sway at the time of the DAI without adding undue polemy. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 16:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

fair enough . The period in question is indeed sketchy, and is probably peripheral to the question of Bosniaks Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth of Bosnia and Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia

@Norrskensstämmor: I challenge you to provide a single English-language WP:RS that describes Elizabeth of Bosnia and Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia as Bosniaks. Last time I had this discussion, the editor I was having the exchange with directed me to a bunch of Youtube videos and told me to listen to the way Poles pronounce the word "Bošnjanin" (an archaic term for Bosnian, not Bosniak—as the SDA and other nationalist politicians would have it). Their inclusion is equivalent to Macedonians (ethnic group) featuring a picture of Alexander the Great or Serbs featuring one of Constantine. It's completely ahistorical and goes against the scholarship of folks like Fine, Malcolm, etc. who stress that medieval Bosnians were not "Bosniaks", "Croats" and "Serbs" in the contemporary sense. I suggest you do some reading. Failure to provide reliable sources is grounds for removal, since without academic verification, the article is essentially peddling nationalist pseudo-history (and has been for the last year or so). 23 editor (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Laughing in text is not especially classy, but please bear with me this once. You cannot be serious 23editor, haha! Constantine and Alexander the Great were not even Slavs let alone "Serbs" or "Macedonians". Actually, they predate the arrival of Slavs in the Balkans altogether. Yet you find their inclusion equivalent to including Slavic individuals of medieval Bosnia (i.e. Bosnians) into the infobox of a contemporary Slavic population of Bosnia who are equally much Bosnians, as well as Bosniaks. Does the absurdity of your hefty comparison not strike you? Whichever way one attempts to disrupt and dispute the ethnic continuity of Bosnia these historic figures undoubtedly represent the ancestors of Bosniaks (as well as Bosnians). Constantine and Alexander the Great are not the ancestors of Serbs or Macedonians in any sense of the word. Moreover, there is no point in disputing the obvious fact that the Bosniak identity is more homegrown to Bosnia than the exogenously adopted "Bosnian Serb" and "Bosnian Croat" identities of the 19th century. And yes, Bošnjanin is an archaic term for "Bosnian", as is Bosniak. 'Bosniak' (Bošnjak) itself is derived from the older 'Bošnjanin'. However, what you seem to operate on is the fallacious belief that "Bosnian" in this sense may simply be translated as the contemporary "Bosanci", a notion barely a century old and which largely rests on the [only recent] division of Bosnians into three ethnic groups along religous lines, whereas Bosnians in the sense of the Bošnjani or pre-19th century Bosniaks were not. In my opinion, you appear to approach the subject from one irrational extreme and Norrskensstämmor from another, both slightly tarnished with nationalist ideology. As for the matter per se I do not have any definite opinion, since the issue is not worth my time. The actual quality of a article depends the least on which individuals are to be included into the infobox or not. However, arguments can be equally made for and against the specific inclusions, as is true for the dubious inclusion of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha in the Serbs infobox. Nonetheless, the argument that these medieval individuals cannot be considered Bosniaks in the "modern sense" of the word is irrelevant. As a matter of fact they can neither be considered "Bosnians" in the modern sense, as already explained. And the same point could be made about any medieval persona in relation to their "future nations", including the Serbs or Croats. The current national ethnic identities are a construct of the 19th century, and ever developing. Despite the wishful presentations of nationalists there are no perfect continuities between ethnic identity and state in a historic persepctive, which is also what makes Serb nationalist attempts at dismembering a Bosnian "continuity" whilst upholding a purportedly solid continuity of their own so ahistorical. The bottomline is, I had to refute your beyond absurd comparison. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Saying the comparision is "absurd" is no more absurd that saying these two individuals were Bosniaks. Sure, they were the ancestors of modern Bosnians. But Bosniaks are not the only Bosnians. By your own logic, Stephen and Elizabeth are both Serbs and Croats as well (unless, of course, you're insinuating that these two groups are not indigenous to Bosnia and that Bosniaks are the only "pure" Bosnians, which is ridiculous.) Again, bring me two English-language WP:RS, peer-reviewed and published by an academic institution which explicitly state that one or the other were Bosniaks. And while you're at it, try finding one WP:RS not written by a Bosniak that states Bošnjani and Bosniaks are one and the same. If you can't find these, which I suspect will be the case, I'll go ahead and remove the two and the onus will be on you to prove why they should be included. As for your rather off-topic jab on Sokolović, that article has got nearly a dozen sources which describe him as a Serb. To suggest that his inclusion on the Serbs infobox is somehow less justified than Stephen and Elizabeth's inclusion here is to be ignorant of the sources and what they explicitly do and don't say. And there goes your argument. I know it isn't classy to laugh, but... 23 editor (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

23 editor seems right, cause this sort of inclusions without a RS end up being WP:OR. FkpCascais (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course I'm right. For some reason none of the editors supportive of these individuals' inclusion offer any English-language, non-Bosnian, peer-reviewed WP:RS to back up their claims. As for the assertion that Bošnjani is simply an archaic term for Bosniak, the Slovene academic Velikonja rejects this claim , saying: "The people identified themselves as Bosnians (Bošnjani) in a geographic sense rather than an ethnic or religious one." But that's going slightly off topic. This sub-section is about Stephen and Elizabeth, and again, I see no reliable sources that clearly and unequivocally describe them as Bosniaks. 23 editor (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Turkey

Where did the Joshua Project find 101,000 Bosniaks living in Turkey? It doesn't give any information about that. It is serious as the Turkish Government puts the number at 2 millions. Maybe keeping only the Turkish government numbers is a better idea.NobleFrog (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)