Talk:Antun Knežević

Bošnjak

I wrote:

linking this "Bošnjak" to modern-day article on Bosniaks is anachronistic and incoherent, rephrase and relink a bit to clarify

User:Santasa99 wrote:

OK, you & I both know what and who are Bosnians and who are Bosniaks, his idea had nothing with Bosnian identity which include Croat, Serbs and Bosniaks - his idea was exactly what today Bosniak accepted and promote as a mainstream Bosniak identity

This is an interpretation that is at odds with what is currently described at Bosniak people which you linked. Instead, the Bosnians article describes that view. So it makes sense to link the latter, not the former; otherwise we confuse the readers who follow the link.

It is not neutral to state offhand that Croats and Serbs in BiH are the sole result of Croatization and Serbianization, which is why I slightly rephrased that. If you wish to state something like that as a fact, you need to back this up with reliable sources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it is neutral or not, but certainly not all Serbs and all Croats embraced their identity as a result of Serbianization and Croatization, nor all Bosniaks today are exclusively Muslims/muslims. Only important thing in this article, regarding the matter, is what Knežević stance on this issue was, and how clear is that to you and me as editors when addressing it to readers. I am not sure if it was me who used "Croatization" and "Serbianization" in the first place, I believe not, but I haven't seen any problems with this particular euphemisms since A.K. actually dealt with the problem in his own time, in his own way, clearly suggesting in his works what was his stance on contemporary assimilations processes in BiH, often with particular determination and even anger. Bottom line is - I have no intention of turning one article into political forum or my own, Antun's views are what they are and if that includes these two contentious words, so be it. He alone had only purest of intentions, not corrupted with politics, impartial and unburdened with historical revisionism, hence my deepest respect for the Antun and his work(Santasa99 (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)).

And, i forgot a very important thing - if you put Knežević under Bosnians then you making a factual mistake and great iniquity to late Antun himself. As I said, Bosnians are, at least until this day, Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks, Bosnians alone doesn't exist as ethnicity or nationality, again at least not yet. This fact will lead any reader to conclusion that Knežević was a Croat, regarding his religion, which is wrong, first and foremost it's wrong to Antun himself, secondly it's wrong to Bosniaks and how Bosniaks themselves define their identity today - which even Wikipedia accept and state that Bosniaks are ...people-ethnicity-nationality-regardles to religion-most of which belong to Islam..., etc, etc... indeed NOT exclusively Muslims/muslims. Antun's view of Bosniak identity is absolutely identical to view of todays Bosniaks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santasa99 (talk • contribs) 17 April 2012

Again, you're going to have to back your claims up with some reliable sources if you want them to stick. The modern-day Bosniak nation has Islam for a pretty defining characteristic. The modern-day Bosnian identity proponents match what you just described - they're inclusionist. Important Bosniak religious institutions are so vehemently against that kind of behavior that they're telling people that if they don't declare in the census as a Bosniak rather than as a Bosnian, they're "directly or indirectly working on ethnic cleansing of the Bosniaks. You can find claims like self-genocide in the media, too - that article in particular cites something Jukić but gives it a modern-day context. In any case, the pattern is that some people cling to ideology and some cling to terminology - we need secondary sources that describe what's right. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antun Knežević. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210151236/http://www.crkvajajce.org/jajce.php to http://www.crkvajajce.org/jajce.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)