Talk:Bosniaks/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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)

Look Bosniaks gene pool, they only share ancestry with Scandinavians:
http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/I1a_large_RG.jpg
http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/I1b_large_RG.jpg
http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/I1c_large_RG.jpg

Look Serb gene pool, they only share ancestry with central Africans:
http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/E3a_large_RG.jpg
http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/E3b_large_RG.jpg
c is almost extinct, and other E haplogroup branches are similar but the CLOSEST and MOST RECENT ancestors to Serbs are Central Africans.

We know that there arent many ancient documents about this region, but this will help clarify who belonged to what type of tribe in the past. Note that this is only recent ancestry of course, E haplogroup may have evolved from middle east before 20,000 years ago, but this is not important as those are massive figures and that kind of stuff is not worth going in to, as to what kind of monkeys humans were 100,000 years ago :). 77.78.198.26 (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Illyrians were a collection of different tribes in roughly the lands of X-Yugoslavia.. Different tribes came from different places for example Bosnian tribe was from river Bosna which was named Bosona or Bosna before and during Illyria or Roman empire and even now.. So these Bosnianks are not only genetically Bosnians, but also historically. 91.191.3.222 (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian tribe? What Bosnian tribe? There's no any tribe which name was based on the name of the Bosna river. There was only toponym Bosona for the river.

Bosnia was settled mainly by the Southern Pannonians: the Maezaei (between the lower Una and Vrbas valleys, as far as the northern slopes of Grmeč and Srnetica to the south), the Ditiones (south of Maezaei, between the Mount Plješevica to the west, the Vijenac and Šator mountains or perhaps even Dinara to the south, and the easternmost slopes of Klekovača and Lunjevača (Drvar) to the east), and the Daesitiates (between the Vrbas and perhaps the Drina valleys, extending as far as the mountains south of Sarajevo). There were also several smaller ethnical communities (cfr. Strabo, 7.5,3), probably the Deretini, the Dindari, the Glinditiones and the Melcumanni, all probably within the vast area of the Daesitiates who, according to the authoress, politically dominated the communities mentioned. The Deretini were in Rama valley, the Dindari in Dinara, fields of Bosansko Grahovo, and in central Drina basin, the Glinditiones in Nevesinjsko Polje (Field of Nevesinje), the Melcumani in Gatačko Polje (Field of Gacko).

The Southern Pannonians were not "Illyrian proper" by culture, they were influenced by the Urnfield and Hallstat culture. However we count them as the Illyrians in wider context as well as the most of the other tribes in the Western Balkan.

The tribes of the Illyrian proper group were settled from Glasinac (10 km to the east of Sarajevo) to the Northern Albania (in modern geography: southern Bosnia, eastern Herzegovina, southern Dalmatia, Montenegro, southwestern Serbia, northern Albania). Autariatae were the Illyrian proper and one of the strongest Illyrian tribe during some period, their seats were in eastern Bosnia from Tara river and Lim river to Morava river in the east. Zenanarh (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the sentence "Although all traces of Illyrian culture and language have disappeared, (...)" is obviously incorrect in this part (surely we have an abundance of archaeological finds, toponyms, etc. -- how else would we know of the Illyrians as a matter of fact rather than a case of fiction?) It is hard to judge whether the sentence as it now stands is actually the exact citation by Imamovic; however, that seems unlikely as Imamovic is a reputable local historian and a tenured university Professor in Sarajevo, so it seems rather an unfortunate interpretation of his words. Therefore this sentence should read something along these lines: "Although their language disappeared, many traces of Illyrian culture remain to this day, such as numerous archaeological finds and toponyms so that even the name of Bosnia (...)". A personal, overall impression: the article seems ambiguous in that it regards a people as having two distinct origins throughout the text. Of course this situation is impossible, and should be replaced by percentages available from DNA studies. So I think the gatekeeper of this article must clearly separate science (Wilkes; DNA studies, etc.) from Serbian chauvinist politics, and finally take the former side while vetting the whole article accordingly. The way it now appears to be “balanced” is rather funny at best, which does disservice to science as well as to Wikipedia. Bosnipedian (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact you are right, a lot of "South Slavic culture", especially in region of the Dinar Alps (plains and river basins sufferred much more population changes), came from the Illyrian ages, ie many toponyms (in Dalmatia there are even some toponyms related to the pre-Illyrian people!), but also some traditions. Why don't you try to find some references to cover these facts and edit it. A lot of sources was written concerning Croatian culture and traditions coming from an autochtonous Iron Age environment, but it can be used only for Croatian population, so it's not helpful here. If you want some balance here, dig for sources ;) Zenanarh (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I simply suggested how to improve a rather ridiculously-sounding article. I don't have access to the information you mention, and the already quoted DNA references seem valid to me. The page seems to be edit-locked anyway so I don't see your point, unless you are the person who locked the page and is now mocking one friendly suggestion from a position of authority. Bosnipedian (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL No buddy, I was just riding a bike around here and stopped for a friendly comment. I'm sure you can find more suitable refferenced citation in the net. Don't know about the authorities, you must have confused me with a cop :P didn't see any, gonna tell you if I do ;) Zenanarh (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2009 (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 by 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 southward 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 "separates 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)

RESPONSE:

By the same argument you could dispute the existence of Romania, which is not on the map... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.98.64 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

---

HOO-BOY what a messianic words, and map is 11. commandment of sorts ?! So, your genetic and biological "research" with your knowledge in Balkan historiography is actually ultimate truth. You exactly know what Bosniak should feel and identified at any given point in time, and of course you have your sources to corroborate your opinions and writing.

But, unfortunately for you all who deny-negate this benevolent people and country, Bosniaks still and persistently living in their Bosnia, their monuments, culture and tradition, today, same as 800-900 hundred yrs. ago, flourish and producing the most prominent, creative people among South Slavs, which is a self-evident truth that is prove of distinctive and transcendent, overwhelming cultural prevalence in a distinctive ethno-cultural microuniverse - from stećci to Oskar, from architecture to Nobel prize (one in literature and one in science), etc.

Now you have something to scream about. Those Nobel Laureates were Croat (!!!) and/or Serb (!!!) (altough he was Croat who became Serb !?). Stećci tombe stones are Serbian (acording to Serbian mythomanes), actually Croatian (acording to Croatian mythomanes) monuments. Aren't they ? But of cours, that doesn't matter, I am talking about cultural influences, cultural identity and tradition above all, and then ultimately national affiliation.

Bottom line Bosniaks are here, and Bosnia is here, last 1000 yrs. You all live with both every day on one way or another, for the last thousand yrs. You read, watch, hear, Bosnia and Bosniaks, and if you come a cross even taste and breath.

• Ivan Frano Jukić, excerpt from his work:

"We Bosniaks, the once-famous people, now that we are barely alive, our friends of science see us as head detached from the Slavic tree and pity us .... It is time to awoke from a long lasting negligence; give us the cup, and from well inexhaustibly gain knowledge, wisdom, and doctrine; firstly let us try to cleanse our hearts from prejudice, reach for books and magazines, let's see what the others did, so that we can take the same means, that our nation of simple people from the darkness of ignorance to the light of truth we bring."

• Inscription from one stećak from the heart of Bosnia send word to all Bosnians, Bosniaks and who ever know to read:

This white stone is my sign mark.
And It marks not that I were, but that I am not, no more.
When you pass by and read my marble, Man curse upon you, don't touch in it.
For, man, maybe you walked all the way to the stars.
And returned, because there is nothing there, yet again you alone.
Because man can see even something that can't be seen, hear something he never heard,
taste something he didn't tasted, be somewhere he never was,
but always and everywhere he can only find himself or don't find.
Even if my bones are left in a stranger, alien land, still I would dreamed only of my Bosnia.
Therefor, Man curse upon you, don't touch in me.
I laid down at the summer of 1094, when it was drought, so in heaven there was no tears for me.

For every individual Bosniak this statement, this poem of the dying, who made his last words immortal should be a lesson in history and it is a lesson and kind of oath.--Santasa99 (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2009 (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)

We definitely need help sorting this out. I really should go to bed, but hopefully tomorrow we can find some sort of compromise. Academic Challenger (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This IP guy seems to disagree with every editor on this page, and some other pages. There seems to be a recurring argument: "Bosniaks aren't Slavs", and on other pages: "Russian interests for Slavic expansionism". BalkanFever 11:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, almost every user here is really one user with many nicknames, as we both know. The biggest problem for them is that this is easy to spot since they all have two things in common, they dismiss Anthropologists and Genetic research by any reliable sources such as Oxford uni and Pubmed. So Wikipedia Balcans sections ends up basically a bunch of Points of views, that just say.. Oh it's Slavs and thats it, while genetic anthropological sections of Wikipedia say that Bosniaks don't have R1a haplogroup whatsoever. look: http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/R1a_large_RG.jpg 77.78.209.109 (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Your not helping your case at all with your wild accusations of one person having many accounts. If you really believe this, you should get an account and give evidence to the Arbitration Committee. Academic Challenger (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the point, when it's easy to hide the evidence, Wikipedia is too easy to fool technically, and admins will never be 100% sure. It's impossible to say that Bosniaks are genetically Slavs when they have entirely different haplogroup family to Slavs, yet the genetic text clearly states that Bosniaks are Slavs, and the consensus supports this for some mysterious reason, look: http://www.bionity.com/lexikon/e/Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA) 77.78.209.109 (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither I2a (new mark for I1b1) is Illyrian neither R1a is Slavic haplotype. The best name for I2a would be Adriatic-Dinaric, or proto-Illyrian if you want it in relation to some generalized ethnos. It means that it made a large (predominant) component of what was much later known as Illyrian ethnogenesis. Observe that I2a originated 22 KYA in Adriatic steppes, while different Illyrian tribes were formed 3-4 KYA at the eastern Adriatic coast and Dinaric Alps, due to assimilation (ethnic and cultural) with Indo-Europeans, who were coming from the north and east. R1a is usually named as Eastern European or (ethnically) Indo-european. It's true that some Slavic speakers who came from Russian and Ukrainian steppes were R1a. But there's also another fact: R1a was coming to the Balkans in larger number from 2.000 years BC, the mostly around 1.000 BC. So these Indo-Europeans contributed to ethnogenesis of some Illyrian tribes like Iapodes. Slavic tribes which were coming during Antiquity (last migrators in 8th century) were surely the mostly of R1a, but not all of them (100%) for sure. In fact the real Slavs, or better to say the first speakers of proto-Slavic languages were nomadic tribes of N haplotype in NW Asia. These languages became lingua franca in the caravan roads Asia-Europe, that's how it gradually spread to the Eastern Europe and influenced many R1a Indo-Europeans. On the other side, the name Slav comes from the Byzantine documents reffering to Sclavens. Sclavens were not an ethnic group of the same culture. They were the members of tribal union, consisting of many different ethnically separated tribes of different names and culture. Old Slavonic language which developed in the Western Balkans was again a kind of lingua franca of this tribal union, language for communication between different peoples. In that moment some of ex-Illyrians were already Slavized. Actually the most of the modern inhabitants of the western Balkans are the natives by ancestry (concerning period of Late Antiquity). Slavic migrators from 6th-8th century made just a little part of overall population. In our modern age, when we say "South Slavs", we are actually speaking about Illyrians, Venets, Celts, Thracians, Slavs and others who became Slavs because of linguistic assimilation. If you insist that the Bosniaks are Illyrians, then be more precise and conclude that Bosniaks are Illyrians, Celts, Thracians, etc. In that case Croats are Illyrians, Celts, Venets, etc. So Serbs should be Thracians, Celts, Illyrians, Dacians, etc. Zenanarh (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You do make some sense and link the Genetic data quite well, but I will read it a few times because it's quite complex before I respond again Noonien Soong (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Aha, you have it wrong in a small detail, Bosniaks are considered to frequent I1b which covers more Bosniaks not just I1b1, which is the same as Swedes and Norwegians should be under I1a because it's too much detail to go even deeper into detail I guess, but you weren't drastically wrong. And as far as the new naming convention is concerned, we aught to accept them of course, but I'm too used to the old one for now. Although whether you use new or old naming convention, you're still saying virtually the same thing. Noonien Soong (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I1b1 is what was usually called I1b becuse of simplicity, concerning the Western Balkans and that's haplo discussed here. Other I1b subgroups are not found in this area. I1b2 developed from I1b1 but not in the Balkans. I'm also more familiar with older marks but I2a (instead of I1b1) should be used now because of accuracy. I guess you want to say that frequent I covers more Bosniaks than I2a (I1b1)? Zenanarh (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, somebody might say, oh look when they identified my family at the mass grave they told me that I have I1a and I am a Bosniak, what about me. Noonien Soong (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Or we can just say Bosniaks belong to L2 which is a member of L family haplogroup, and here is where L frequents most often, [picture][picture][picture]. Noonien Soong (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it about your family :( ... Your far ancestor was born in South France during the Last Glacial Maximum (18-22.000 years ago). When ice started to melt and retreat to the north, I1a bearers spread to the north, also pushed by expansion of R1b from Iberian peninsula (their LGM refugium). The Alps were natural barrier for their expansion to the east, so today they are found mainly in the Western and Central Europe in very small percentages and in Northern in higher. There is logical possibility that your ancestors came to Bosnia anytime in last 10.000 years: maybe some little group of earlier I1a migrators from the west or north west, maybe the Bronze Age migrators of Hallstat culture expansion from the central Europe, maybe they came before the Bronze Age with some Indo-European migration from the north (southern Baltic - like modern Germany), maybe they came as or with the Celts (who were R1b, but maybe not just all of them), maybe they came as any little tribe from Central or Baltic Europe, which was lately Slavized, or they were already Slavic speakers of the minor I1a part among predominant R1a in some of the latest R1a migrations. I1a is found in the Western Balkans in very small percentages, so whenever these people came it was in a small number - an isolated smaller migration of I1a (one or more tribes) or following migration of some other haplo predominant in one or more tribes. Do you know that the Vikings were I1a? Do you know that the Vikings were travelling along the big East European rivers to the east, attacking, robbering and conquering the natives in the Eastern Europe. Actually they were the establishers of the city of Moscow in Russia! Maybe your ancestors were tired of fighting in the north east and came to Bosnia to take some rest :). Whatever, genetically, you are a descendent of an pre-Indo European male, an autochtonuous inhabitant of Europe. And you cannot be really sure whether your ancestors were ethnically Illyrians, Celts, Pannonians or even Vikings, Ostrogoths or Slavs, 2.000 years ago. Zenanarh (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

L2 is something completely different. They were the Neolithic farmers who migrated from Asia Minor to the eastern Mediterranean. In the Balkan peninsula they are the mostly found in Greece, Romania, Albania, Macedonia, Serbia. Zenanarh (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with using the new naming convention is because the sources still don't use them, and they consider I1a, I1b and I1c as related from one genetic pool. And if we use the confusing new naming convention, then people here will have space for war-editing. What we can do is still copy paste the sources text while we can explain at the start I1a= L2 bla bla. Noonien Soong (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

you seem to be a little bit confused about these markers? Previously there was I1 (I) haplogroup; its subgroups were I1a and I1c (South France origin) and I1b (Adriatic origin). It was found that I1c is just another subgroup of I1a and not distinguished from the initial point. Last change was replacing I1b with I2a, so now you have I1a (South France) and I2a (Adriatic) and its subgroups, or more simplified you have I1 and I2, pre-Indo-Europeans. L2 is a subgroup of L haplo group, Indo-Europeans, not related to I groups in any way. Zenanarh (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I1b . You can never add Serbs to L or old I haplogroup, why? Because Serbs are a completely different people to Bosniaks. 77.78.196.6 (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Zenanarh is completly ignorant and unable to see the genetic data for what it is. Really tragic. 83.254.130.253 (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

US Bosnians are not US Bosniaks

There are about 100 000 ppl of Bosnian descent, but some of them, or even most of them, are not Bosniaks. For example - Ivana Miličević. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.156.236 (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There is over 300,000 Bosniaks in the US and Canada. I don't know what Ivana's ethnic identity is, but my last name is also Milicevic and I am Bosniak from a Muslim family. So I don't understand your point. Are you denying Bosniak identity? 24.82.176.183 (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ivana Milicevic is a Croat... That's exactly his point. Not all people who report "Bosnian" on the American and Canadian censuses are Bosniaks. Like Ivana, they're Croat or Serbs from Bosnia. --Epochical (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Anybody who identifies as a Bosnian is usually a friend of Bosniaks or a Bosniaks, as we all know Serbs by default are a people who want to break up Bosnia, Macedonia, take Kosovo, Montenegro, keep Vojvodina, keep Rumanian & Bulgarian, Take almost half of Croatia... So basically they want to damage all of their neighbors. Bosniak Atheist (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not a page for random unconstructive rants about ethnicity in the Balkans. Any further such rants will be removes as unproductive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Look: http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL22859447 http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gaktLoMF53t2L-whw8kad8aAAP0A I can find endless sources of events in nations around Serbia where Serbs are a mortal issue to those nations, so I'm just drawing conclusions from what I can notice in the world media, it is very realistic and fair to say that Serbs have a dangerous issue with most if not all of their neighbors. I know it sounds trollish but when it's true then there really is no choice but to mention it, and I won't come back to this issue, as I am actually not very interested in it. Bosniak Atheist (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, my opinion is that the Serbophone populations of the Balkans should be allowed whether they want independence, dependence to their current country. However, it's also completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, ie the fact that not all people in the Bosnian diaspora are Bosniaks. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 09:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Surnames

There are many Bosniaks which have surnames that end with "nin". Do anybody know something more about bosniak surnames with "nin". For Example : Ugljanin , saplanin etz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MR.BOSNJAK-GORAZDE (talk • contribs) 00:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• I was told that the ending "anin" comes from old bosnian surnames. In the Middle Ages Bosnians used to identify themselves with the word "Bosnjanin". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo%C5%A1njani)

So some had surnames with "anin" as well because they wanted to link their nationality with their surnames. could that be possible? sorry for my bad english —Preceding unsigned comment added by MR.BOSNJAK-GORAZDE (talk • contribs) 01:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Surnames are irrelevant. If you identify as Bosniak, then you ARE Bosniak. It's simple as that. 24.82.176.183 (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I know , but it's a fact that there are Bosniaks with "anin" surnames. I want to know

why! Your sentence wasn't an answer to my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MR.BOSNJAK-GORAZDE (talk • contribs) 19:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In the English-speaking world, Bosniaks are most commonly known as Bosnian Muslims, although Bosniaks make up 48% of the population while only 40% of the population is Muslim. This sentence is confusing. Bosniaks make up only 48% of WHICH poppulation? 98.196.78.26 (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Bosniaks are NOT Bosnian Muslims, and I find that heavily offensive because I come from a Bosniak family of Albanian origin in Montenegrin Sandžak, and you're going to tell me that Bosniaks are Bosnian Muslims, well I don't think so... And as for the Surname question, the "-anin" refers to the place of origin that person is originally from, which was adopted into their surnames. Perfect examples can be found here in Montenegro, for example, in Gusinje, there is an Albanian family of the Kelmendi tribe from the village of Hakanje whose surname is "Hakaj", however, instead of Serbs giving them an "-ić" suffix in the Serbian truncation of their surname, they gave them the "-nin" suffix instead, and are known as the "Hakanjin" clan, to better reflect their place of origin. Same thing with the "Deljanin" family, also from Gusinje. They are Albanian by origin, and are originally from the village of Delaj, near Tuzi. Their surname literally means "person from Delaj", just like those of the "Hakanjin" family as "person from Hakanje". That's the best example I could find for you. --Prevalis (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Prevalis, how are you a Bosniak if you are Albanian ?

Bosniaks are those people in Bosnia who traditionally have been Muslim (ie their family). So 48% of people in Bosnia come from this demograhpic group. However, in modern times, people are becoming more secularized, therefore not all Bosniaks declare as Muslims. Eg English people are traditionally "anglicans" but not many actually practice, or declare it in censi. The issue is confused because some other Slavic Muslims, outside of Bosnia, usually from the region of the Sandzak in southern Serbia, also declare to be Bosniaks, rather than Serbs. This is becuase of a religious affiliation. Moreover, during the ottoman times, the Sandzak region was under the Bosnian villayet Hxseek (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

My friend, you need to spruce up on your historical facts...The modern term "Bosniak" was rekindled in Sandžak, not in Bosnia, where everyone thinks it has, like I had once thought. I had actually taken the time to listen to the Sandžaklija point of view on the matter, and believe it, or not, their side makes better sense then the Bosnian view. Why don't Bosniaks call themselves Bosnian instead? They don't, reason being is that they want to be known as a separate entity, but who are they kidding, they are Bosnians whether they like it or not. Officially, the term "Bosniak" is supposed to represent a Slavic Muslim living on or is from the territory of Former Yugoslavia. If you went to Sandžak right now and called a Bosniak Bosnian, they'd curse at you...and I'm not kidding, I've tried myself (not the best of ideas :S). And not every Bosniak is affiliated with Bosnia, that has to be understood. My family is of Catholic Albanian origin, yes, but they had become Slavicized over time, accepting Islam as their faith, becoming Bosniaks in the process. As stated in the article Bosniaks of Montenegro, two-thirds of the modern Montenegrin Bosniak population is in fact of Albanian origin *ahem*, which in fact is true, while the remaining one-third is of Serbian origin. --Prevalis (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If you don't believe me in my view, then I suggest you take this up with Šerbo Rastoder, who is now head of the Bosniak Council. And FYI, not to spark something or anything, but the Montenegrin Muslims of Bar are in fact Bosniaks of Albanian origin, but because they are stubborn and hard-headed, they nowadays refuse to be acknowledged as anything BUT Montenegrin. Sound stupid, does it not? Whereas, in northern Montenegrin, in so-called "Sandžak" (which is beginning to be referred to as the Serbian part, no longer the Montenegrin), the majority of Slavic Muslims there, who are considered to be equals as those in Bar, declare themselves as Bosniaks, while those that are Albanian continue to be known as Albanian, of course. So tell me, why is this the case? --Prevalis (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And I never said all Bosniaks are Muslim, however Bosniaks are predominantly Muslim, majority of them of the Sunni sect. Hell, my uncle is an Atheist who calls himself a Muslim for the pride of his own family. However, he, unlike the rest of his family, refuses to be a Bosniak because he looks at this situation the same way you do, whereas his siblings look at it my way. This may seem strange but this is all from the people's different POV. --Prevalis (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Right. I agree that Bosniaks has been a generic term used to refer to the Muslim Slavs of former Yugoslavia. Not discrediting the opinions of Montenegrin villagers, Bosniak was a term sometimes used by the Bosnian bans to refer to their subjects in the 14 th century. Therefore the origin of the term Bosniak is from within Bosnia. I am not an expert on where the "spiritual centre" of balkanian Muslims is, whether it be Bosnia or Sandzak, and consequently where the term was rekindled. All i know is that it has been a very recent phenomenon , and not entirely well taken by non-Mulsim Bosnians because it original used pertained to pre-Ottoman Bosnian people, ie Christians Hxseek (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that has been the case lately. However, more and more are actually realizing the truth. My grandfather from my father's side doesn't declare himself as a Bosniak, whereas, my father (his son) declares as one. My father is actually one of the few in his family that actually declares himself a Bosniak, but that's because he's heard both sides of the story, whereas the Montenegrin Muslims have only heard one and live by it like it was their Bible or something...not to sound offensive or anything, but you know where I'm getting at. Anyway, I agree with you that originally, the term did pertain to pre-Ottoman Bosnian people, and even Ottoman Bosnians at one point, which is something even I agreed with, like you, until about a year or two ago. The term, however, eventually died out and came to become the official term for all Slavic Muslims of Yugoslavia, however, they have a hard time acknowledging such because living under Communism had affected their nationalist beliefs, forcing all Slavic Muslims (including Bosniaks) to declare as Muslims by nationality. This caused Bosniaks to lose their beliefs and transition towards being Slavic Muslims. Two generations of my family suffered through this, too, losing their Bosniak heritage in the process (though we are mostly Albanian by origin). As I had said earlier, more and more people are coming to their senses and are declaring as Bosniaks instead of Montenegrin, Serbian, Bosnian, Muslim by nationality, etc. --Prevalis (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Prevalis, I don't know if you took offense at the statement I made but when I posted it it was meant to ask for clarification of the statistic. I did not say "In the English-speaking world, Bosniaks are most commonly known as Bosnian Muslims", it is mentioned in the opening lines of the article and I guess I asked the question in the wrong section or something, I don't know. But if you took offense I'm sorry. It was just a misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.78.26 (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bosniak populations outside Bosnia

Hi, the figures for Bosniak populations outside Bosnia should probably be reviewed. For example, the 55,465 figure for Sweden actually refers to the number of persons living in Sweden who were born in Bosnia. Given that less than half of all Bosnians are Bosniaks it doesn't seem like a fair approximation. I'd also guess a lot of the other figures are similarly flawed as well and should be adjusted.Osli73 (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well feel free to find new sources instead of complaining. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "complaining", I'm righting a factual error. Since most countries do not categorize people by ethnicity only by nationality/country of birth it is extremely unlikely that there is any census data on Bosniak populations outside of Bosnia/Yugoslavia. I've looked for data for Sweden but not been able to find any on ethnic Bosniak or people of Bosniak heritage.Osli73 (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but until you provide us with detailed sources this is the closest we can get. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding false information just to fill up the article is pointless. Europemayhem (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• User:Ancient_Land_of_Bosoni has reinserted the alleged figure of 2 million Bosniaks in Turkey, the concerns of which I've partially addressed above. That figure is just some kind of "estimate" and not valid censi data. Bosoni, please find some non-Turkish source on it that is legally valid and does not look like some kind of cheap tabloid webpage article, otherwise it'll be removed. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed them again. The sources that stated that there are 2 million Bosniaks in Turkey, were all duplicates and weren't reliable sources. Europemayhem (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Bosoni, I don't understand your logic for including these figures. We both seem to agree that they refer to Bosnians as a whole, or at least persons born in Bosnia, and not to Bosniaks. Given that Bosniaks are but one of three minorities in Bosnia, I cannot see how they are even a good estimate. I have kept the ex-Yugoslav figures since they probably (I don't know, I can't read the sources) are based on ethnic census figures. Are you saying we should keep incorrect/false information simply because there is no better data? I cannot agree with that.Erikarver (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I will have to say that I find it quite disturbing to note that some of the editors here have granted themselves the right to discard the entire Turkish state as "invalid". In my oppinion that borders to racism. And also, Bosniaks are in no minority, actually they constitute a majority in Bosnia. However, the source does not have generally Bosnians in mind, but exclusively Bosniaks. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources for the number of Bosniaks in Sweden and a number of other western countries refer to persons from Bosnia and Herzegovina, not specifically Bosniaks (which is how the article uses the information). Since Bosniaks only make up a large minority (~47%) of the population that is not a valid generalization. Therefore I see no valid reason to include this information. If you disagree, please explain yourself.Osli73 (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Just clearing up some terminology here, they're neither a majority or minority, but a plurality.Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 09:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bosnia - centre of Illyrian Kingdom?

I've deleted this sentence as well as reference Wilkes: Illyrians, pages 254-281. In these pages Wilkes talks about Illyricum province of the Roman Empire, not about 300 yrs older Illyrian state. Illyrian state was much smaller than Illyricum and practically didn't spread to Bosnia not even for a mile. Probably somewhat to southern Herzegovina, but not Bosnia. Zenanarh (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The pages of reference could be somewhat wrong, but still Wilkes generally mentions in the book what is stated in this article. Search the net for this topic together with Wilkes name and you will see. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's here [1]. Show me where? Pages 254-281? Page 254 is 9th chapter "Imperial Illyrians", beginning in 1st century, it's about the Roman province Illyricum, sometimes Illyria. Illyrian state was already R.I.P.

Illyrian state (Kingdom) was much smaller, developed as union of different tribes in the eastern Adriatic in resistance to Helenization coming from the south. Their kings were probably from Ardiaei tribe settled in the southern Dalmatian and Montenegrin coast, addicted to the seamenship and after the Liburnians, first in conflicts with the Greek colonies. State was tribal union, in its best days it was spread from the southern Dalmatian islands in the west to Macedonia in the east and all Epirus in the south. Only some of southern Herzegovina in the north-west. Delmatae and their few compatriots hidden under Delmatae umbrella and other tribes in Bosnia, Herzegovina, Pannonia were not the part of that state, rather allies in the later stages depending on the Roman legions arrival. Greeks started to colonize southern Adriatic in 7th century BC, pushing Liburnians to the north, in 4th century BC they had Pharos colony on the island of Hvar, in 2nd century BC their island and coast colonies were in danger or already taken by the Illyrian state run by the eastern Adriatic tribes, Greeks were desparate and asked the Romans to interfere and in 1st century BC you have Illyrian wars... In pages 254-281 you have Illyricum province. And Bosnia was really in the centre of it geographically, more in Panonian then Dalmatian sub-province. Zenanarh (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well we might as well get rid of "Bosnia was once the centre of Illyricum" because that is just common knowledge, is nothing perculiar to Wilkes' views, and adds nothing to the intro section Hxseek (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I would rather say that sir Wilkes had the territory of present-day Bosnia in mind as the cultural and national centre of Illyria, and not plainly as the geographical. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cultural, national, what does it mean? There was no homogenous Illyrian culture as well as there was no homegenous Illyrian ethnicity. You cannot use word "national" for any age before 18th and 19th century. In the Iron Age every hill had its own chief. The real cultural centre of the "proper Illyrians" would be rather Montenegro than Bosnia. A fact that the most of Bosniaks are the descendents of the Iron Age Bosnian population is not disputed. Zenanarh (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I could and will back off from the issue on Illyrian culture, since you provided some good arguments. But nevertheless, you fell into a contradiction when writing "A fact that the most of Bosniaks are the descendents of the Iron Age Bosnian population is not disputed", but for a fact many of the Serb and Croat editors on wikipedia are not even prepared to admit a connection between Bosniaks and medieval Bosnia, which of course is completly absurd. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You're totally confused, aren't you? :) I can fall into a contradiction only with my own words, not someone else's. According to some modern evaluations ~80% of all modern Western Balkan population descended from the Iron Age population. ~20% could be connected to the Late Antique and Early Medieval immigrants from the north, north-east and north-west. Your main problem is knowing and understanding history. Every modern ethnic group in the WB has very complex ethnogenesis. Linear ethnogenesis is possible only in some isolated island in the Pacific (like in Micronesia). Balkan is something completely different, being for centuries (and milleniums) a crossroad of important historical migrations, cultural meetings and conflicts, culturisations, aculturisations, ethnic assimilations, ethnic absorbtions, wars, alliances, local and global events important for all European space. It doesn't make me less Croat and it doesn't make you less Bosniak, as well as some Frenchman is not less Frenchman for the same reason. Respect your ancestors whoever they were to understand who you are now and how you become who you are. Don't invent myths. There's rich historiography written on the matter. Zenanarh (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Come on now let's be honest, somewhere deep inside of you there is a tendency to observe Bosniaks as Croat traitors? It has been a common doctrine among serb and croat households for ages. I don't understand the purpose of your recent add to this discussion, of course all peoples are to some degree heterogenous. But I would say quite surely that Bosniaks are the least heterogenous compared to croats and serbs. Croats for example are purely slavic in the zagreb area, but the ones in dalmatia are the ancestors of iranians and italians. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Modern interdisciplinary research (linguistics, genetic, archaeology etc.) shows that most Slavs (=Slavic speakers) of the Balkans are in fact Slavicised pre-Slavic (i.e. before the C5 AD Slavic-speech expanion) populations ("Illyrian", Celtic, Iranian..who knows whatnot). This is quite contrary to the popular C19 romantic myth of millions of Slavs falling from the sky populating half of Europe (and native populations somehow "disappearing" without record). Croats of Dalmatia are no "less" Slavic than Croats of Zagreb area in any conceivable cultural traits of "Slavdom". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen Boson, you are a little bit paranoic. My comment has nothing to do with nationalism of any kind, I was perfectly honest. It seems that you start from some nationalism of yours and probably that's why you see only nationalism around you. I'm interested only in science. But since you try to read between lines, I will help you about what is deep inside of me: I observe Bosniaks as a friendly people to the Croats and their closest relatives. Why do you think that Bosniaks are the least heterogenous compared to croats and serbs? Zenanarh (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You should start to read books before writting any word here. Your last sentence proves it. Italians? OMG. Zenanarh (talk)

Zenanarh, I also think of Bosniaks and Croats as two mutually friendly peoples, however this is more than what can be said about the croats in Bosnia - in my oppinion they are more friendly towards Serbs. But no matter how much you emphasize culture I believe there is a large genetic difference and origin between Bosniaks and proper Croats, which is readily seen in their differences in appearance. However, frankly I have lost the will to lead a discussion with you anymore, without any further reservation you stamp me as unedcuated, but do not acknowledge yourself the italian influence on the dalmatian population. For crying out loud, the people in dalmatia even speak with many italian words. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Who are those "proper Croats"? You wrote the ones in dalmatia are the ancestors of iranians and italians, what do you expect else than 0 points for this. I didn't want to be offensive, that's my Dalmatian temper. Listen buddy, I have suggestion: if you want, put some e-mail in your preferences and we can chat about these things that way, this is not a place. Zenanarh (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Tvrtko

Pardon if this has already been raised, but is the inclusion of King Tvrtko strictly correct? His historic reign preceded the emergence of the Bosniak identity ? He is certainly not a Bosniak Hxseek (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Tvrtko and Katarina were included simply because they have a fleur-de-lys on their crowns, which is a bit pointless and misleading. europemayhem (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that it may be misleading. French kings also wear fleur-de-lys . lol Hxseek (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This article should talk about Bosniaks, not Bosnia. Thus it should not contain all these images of Tvrtko, Stecci (which are not directly related to Muslim Bosniaks but to pre-islamic Slavs in that territory), Katarina, Liberation of Jajce in WWII nor Day trip to Vranduk (which, as obvious in the in-picture description, is not in any way related to Bosniaks per se). --Darko Maksimović (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Дарко Максимовић (talk • contribs)

I report and note this as an attempt to disconnect the Bosniaks from their pre-Ottomanic ancestors. A quite common tendency among some Croats and Serbs to portray the Bosniaks as alien Turkish elements. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And equally wrong "tendency" would be to portray pre-Ottoman Slavs of B&H as exclusively Bosniak. They're as much "Bosniak" as they are "Serb" or "Croat"... (though it's generally pointless to speak of ethnicities among general population before the C19, when it was confined only to a few of the cultural elites). Not so long ago Bosniak historians abhorred the notion of being culturally identified with anything pre-Ottoman, but after the 1990s.. :) National (mis)appropriations aside, you must admit that Tvrtko's picture would be highly misleading at best. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is very irresponsible of you to suggest that Bosniaks themselves would have wished to cut off their ties from Bosnia, until the 1990's. A suggestion very similiar to the one Serbs suggested when accusing Bosniaks to shell themselves in Sarajevo. As I've said eralier these photos may be claimed by any constitutional group in Bosnia, and if you look at the Bosnian serbs and Bosnian croats articles I am sure you will find these pictures there as well. This is appropriate as long as the descritpion uses the name "Bosnian" before bosniak, serb or croat. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The truth is that Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats would much rather identify themselves with Croat and Serb figures, yes they are entitled to identify themselves with Bosnian figures but chose not to, none has more of a privilege than the other, and none should be prohibited. PRODUCER ^(TALK) 17:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Current Version

I accept without any further objections the version present at this time. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

This whole article is full of propaganda, history falsification, mixing Bosnia and Bosnian history with history of Bosniaks etc. It should be totally rewritten, following the rules:

1. Do not talk about history of Bosnia, Bosnian kings etc. but about Bosniaks and their history. Declare prominent persons as Bosniaks only if you have a very firm and valid source for it.
2. Do not talk about Croats and Serbs and their history, whatever it was, but about Bosniaks and their history.
3. Do not put images of people and events that refer to Bosnia (which is multinational) and Bosnians (which could be of any ethnic origin) but images of famous Bosniaks, giving proper sources for it.

That would be all. I am asking for community support for this, votes or whatever. This article in its current state is an abomination. --Darko Maksimović (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Дарко Максимовић (talk • contribs)

Bosniaks cannot be discussed without the context of Bosnian history. How ignorant comments like yours are. According to you, we should for example be writing articles about hockey without mentioning the ice it is played on. Ridiculous, and your Serbianna-like arguments are quite obsolete, the glory-days of Serb propaganda and the wish to construct history are long gone. Regards Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course Bosniaks have a heritage which stems as long as everyone. But one has to recognise that they only emerged as a distinct group in the 15th century. Pictures of Tvrtko are best kept on pages about Bosnia as a whole Hxseek (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but the intention is to provide a clear cut connection to medieval Bosnia. Bosniaks as a distinct group? Islam did not make Bosniaks "distinct"!?...that is what serb and some croat extremists would like to say. Whereas if you ask Bosniaks, they would tell you that they have been distinct for as long as Bosnia itself. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Histories of peoples are difficult since a people is a very amorphous thing. This is especially so in the Balkans. A compromise could be to state that contemporary Bosniaks consider themselves as ancestors of King Tvrtko and the medieval Bosnian church. Or something to that effect.Osli73 (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, but do you have any references from non-Balkan historians which support this idea that Bosniaks emerged earlier than the 15th century ? I know the answer will be NO. We need to write sourced material. Not what user Ancient Land of Bosoni thinks. Undoubtdedly Bosniaks have a clear cut connection with the medieval Bosnian state, however, they only emerged when they conerted to Islam. There is no evidence of some kind of direct political or cultural continuity, is there. I know there is more to being Bosniak than being Muslim, but being Muslim is the defining feature which seperates them from Serbs and Croats. In fact, there is little evidence to support a notion that Bosnia had developed some kind of identity for its people during the 9th, 10th or even 14th centuries. Even during the height of its so-called 'Kingdom', there was no centralized rule and no uniting religion. Apart from the reference of Bosjanci in one of the king's charters, there is little evidence that Bosnians identified themselves as "Bosnians" in a more than geographic way. At this stage they were simply Slavs with divided loyalties and no clear religious denomination. What created the 'nations' of BiH was the modern age, whan nationalism arose and Othodox alligned with Serbia and Catholics alligned with Croatia and Muslims decided to, eventually, create their own 'ethnicity'. All these obviously are artificial separations and do not follow any real ethnic lines.

And Zennarnah and I already have taken painstaking efforts to educate you about genetics. You still don;t understand the concepts, so its best if you don;t use them to support your arguements. Becuase the issue is far more complex thatn what you think you understand, and secondly, genetic studies are not proof for anything

Hxseek (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2009 (

I really do not feel obligated to have this discussion at all, to be honest. It is frankly being quite ridiculous and childish. The "arguments" you have come up with so far are clearly characterized by traditional serb/croat nationalism. That is, to create some sort of confusion about who the Bosnians in the middle ages really were. And also the self-assertion that Bosniaks simply cannot consider themselves as the descendants of Tvrtko and the Bosnians of his time age. And yes, genetics do prove a lot, as science does in any instance. In this case, the genetics clearly show that Bosniaks are 100% european and Bosnian, as well as predominantly pre-slavic. And not to mention the fact, that the genetic tests have also definitely shown that Bosnian, serb and croats represent a large genetic diversity. So for once and all, stop creating or suggesting some kind of confusion on the identity of medieval Bosnians, and most importantly the Bosniaks acknowledge(for example through the Bosnian church)a cultural continuity with medieval Bosnia. If that is percieved as a thorn in the serb or croat side, then unfortunately you will have to live with it. Although sane people would not bother. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, the only person who has an agenda is you. Simply, present sources as they present their conclusions and not what you beleive. People like you give genetics a bad name in Wiki, because you use your misinformed understanding of what the results mean for nationalistic purposes. Please define what this 100% pre-Slavic and "European" genetics is represeted by(there is NO definition). Contrary to what you beleive, Bosnians, and Balkan peoples, all have remarkably similar genetic make-up. Don't just look at Y-DNA Haplogroups- do you not know that Y haplogroups are just 1 locus out of miilions. They are interesting and useful, but only tell a fraction of the genetic picture. They give a false picture that populations are very neatly geographically seperated. Have you even looked at other types of DNA data, such as mtDNA and autosomal DNA. No, I bet. You have so much to learn. If you truly want to do justice to your people, stop degrading this article by adding nonsense chauvanistic rants. Hxseek (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah this is so ridiculous and funny. Boson you are not just misusing genetics as Hxseek tries to explain. You even seem to use wrong data to do it. :) Even if Y-chrommosome HGs would show what you propose, then result would be completely different to your ideas. Why? Here's why, I2a1:

45-49% - Croats in Croatia (38% Croatian mainland, ~60% Dalmatia)

B&H geographically:

64% Herzegovina, 52% Bosnia

B&H ethnically:

72% Croats, 44% Bosniaks, 31% Serbs

And you are singing for months the same stupid song about Bosniaks as the bearers of the most ancient genes in the Balkan. Why? I guess you're leaning on I2a1. So why?

Now we can use your distorted logic to go even further in making jokes. Bosniaks have 10% of E3b1a, Croats have ~2%, while Serbs in Serbia have 19%. Aha! So Bosniaks are somewhere between Croats and Serbs?! Isn't it funny?

Well it can get even more funnier. You are constantly screaming that the Bosniaks are the most distinct people since they have the least of "Slavic" genes in region. I guess you mean R1a. Of course it's completely stupid to relate 15.000 yrs old HG to the Slavs, but we don't care about it now, we are making jokes. Do they? Let's see:

Croats ~28% (Cro mainland + Dalmatia)

Bosnians (settlers of Bosnia) 25%; Herzegovinians (settlers of Herzegovina) 12%

Serbia 16%

Aha, you see? Bosnia (where the most of Bosniaks are settled) have significiantly more of it than Serbs in Serbia! How come? And Herzegovinia (settled mostly by Croats) seem to have the least of it. Come on people let's laugh for Guinness record.

I hope you'll never use genetics for your fairytales anymore. You're embarassing yourself. Zenanarh (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello ZENANARH, Wikipedia's own personal and appointed PhD. geneticist. I am glad to see that your quasi-intelligent contributions to this discussion are bringing the whole deal with wikipedia yet another distinct foul smell. What this wannabe has provided in his paragraph are the following: Just taken haplogroups out of the blue, which beyond his ability to grasp, actually show that the Serbs and Croats in Bosnia differ largely from their so-called compatriots in Serbia and Croatia. And also, this foolish man or whatever, believes that because Bosniaks are in the middle range of frequency they must be the mixture of serbs and croats. But using his ridiculous and stupid logics, the case could as likely be that from the Bosniaks two other distinct groups in Bosnia emerged, one having larger frequencies than the orignial Bosniak population and the other having lower - a case of subfractionate poupulation amplification or reduction. So did the hen or the egg come first? But zenanarh, you very intelligent man, go ask mummy for a cookie now will you. And for once and all, the three peoples in Bosnia are all Bosniaks, Bosnians or Bosnjani if you like, the creation of bosnian serbs and croats out of Bosnians is merely a recent propaganda effort. But however, I believe herzegovinians to be the purest and most indigenous Bosniaks...and the so-called bosnian serbs the most mixed-out Bosniaks. Also seen in the test results. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"I2a2 Distribution of Haplogroup I2a2I2a2 is typical of western South Slav populations, especially in Dalmatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina (45 - 50%)." This is the haplogroup testifying of pre-slavic heritage in the so-called south slavs, and as can be seen the pre-slavic heritage is the largest in Bosnians and dalmatians. But beware, not in proper croats or serbs. However as I earlier emphasized, pre-slavic heritage in this context could include a lot of heritage, anywhere from Illyrians to iranian avars - really !anything! before slavs. Dalmatians do not necessary have to share the same sort of pre-slavic heritage as bosnians. The dalmatians are mostly red croats descended from iranians (horvatoi), whereas Bosnians are derived from pre-slavic celts and illyrians. Surprisingly however, is the fact that proper Serbs and croats were not largely influnced by neither of these "pre-slavs". I then assert that both Serbs and croats must be slavs, but then it strikes me that proper serbs and croats do not resemble each other (supposedly both very slavic). Proper croats are although very slavic looking, but the serbs are much less (very dark). So if the proper serbs are not largely pre-slavic, but nor especially slavic looking, what could they be then? But all of a sudden it struck me, the turks and their 500 year rule. It seems as if the serbs are of a large Turkish inheritance. That would surely account for their lack of pre-slavic influence (in this case most reasonbly iranians, serboi) but yet darker skin-tone (turks). So still it seems as if the true slavs cease somewhere around zagreb and proper croatia. Hehe those damn turks, ey serbs? Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

@Bosoni: Of course it's possible. This article as it is at the moment, is the same as if someone wrote an article about Serbs, while actually talking about Serbia. Please understand that a country isn't the same as an ethnic group - Bosniaks live in several countries in the region, as well as all over the world, so this article should be limited to Bosniaks history, not Bosnia history. There is a separate article about Bosnia (Bosnia), which is a multinational state. That is the whole point. --Дарко Максимовић (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, my suggested compromise solution is to say that many Bosniaks consider themselves as the ancestors of the Medieval Bosnian Kingdom. I find it very difficult prove that the line should be drawn from the Medieval Bosnian state to contemporary Bosniaks rather than to Bosnian Serbs or Bosnian Croats. Hence, to present King Tvrtko as a Bosniak (rather than Bosnian Serb or Bosnian Croat) is not correct.Osli73 (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If we left the picture of Tvrtko and stated that Bosniaks consider themselves as ancestors of the medieval Bosnian state, would this be appropriate ? After all, I don;t think that Bosniaks claim exclusivity over such a heritage,do they? it is also part of the Serbs and Croats of Bosnia. However, suggestions that Bosniaks are those Bosnian Krstjani who were the 'true' medieval Bosnians is a stretch Hxseek (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would support a text in line with that. That way we present it as a view rather than as some kind of historical fact. Any more thoughts?Osli73 (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

How about "14th century Bosnian king Tvrtko Kotromanić. An important aspect of pre-Ottoman ancestors of Bosniak and Bosnian heritage alike." PRODUCER ^(TALK) 19:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha, you are a bunch of very pitiful people, however any neutral outsider would easily see you for what you are. And it is exactly therefore you are not very successful in the west, as you would wish. But I will have to say that osli takes the prize today: "they consider themselves to be the descendants....(but it is not sure if the case is so, because they could very likely be from mars or turkey, are they really white? well whiter than me but who cares!)". And my praises to our own special geneticist pH.D. zenanarh. His analysis made perfectly fine sense, just enough to get him passed on a crash course in genetics. Please you narrow-minded thing, do not make your presence here anymore. The test results you are reffering to only classify or view the gene groups roughly into "pre-slavic" and "post-slavic" (arbitrarily based on present-day group frequencies and distribtutions), meaning that the "pre-slavic" genes could include anything from Illyrian (Bosniaks) to Iranian groups (original Serbs and Croats). However, only 15% of the Bosnians are carriers of the slav-related gene. But once again, and please is it not obvious, how the oldest trick of the serb and croat nationalist cooperators once more is played out with a great deal of clumsyness: to create some sort of moral and factual relativsm, that is to create confusion. Nevertheless, this article states all constitutional groups in Bosnia as !Bosnians! in one of the very first paragraphs. Therefore, no where are Bosniaks described as the sole inheritors of medieval Bosnia. But with people like you it is not enough to give you just one finger, you are going for the whole hand or even my damn soul. Hehe, you are pursuing a mission much impossible. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

How about you try getting some sourced material, and write it in a NPOV way, rather than writing what A.L.o.B believes. Otherwise you can keep abusing people all you want, but you'll still get reverted Hxseek (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL Dear ALoBoson, you've lost your mind about this genetic science. Why? I'm sure you don't understand anything at all. There's no any analysis of mine. Those are just some percentages found in modern population of Y-chrom HGs, reflection of a story probably 40.000 yrs long or more, when homo sapiens settled Europe. You say only 15% of the Bosnians are carriers of the slav-related gene!? How brilliant. How do you know that? You have your own laboratory for detecting "Slavic genes"?

Illyrian (Bosniaks)? Bosnia was settled mainly by tribes categorized by culture as a group of the Southern Pannonii. The most northern Illyrians proper were Autariate settled in the SE Bosnia and W Serbia. S Pannonii were closer relatives to Dalmatae group than to the Illyrians proper. You are mixing ethnicities, ethnonyms, toponyms, nationalities, ages, genes, symbols, everything.

Calm down, don't be obsessed. Use sources to write about "Bosniaks" which is in the title of the article. Zenanarh (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't waste your time, Z Hxseek (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The word autochthonous

Does anybody else think the word "autochthonous" (featured in the 3rd line) is pointless jargon serving little purpose in the article and that it alienates 99% of english speakers? I realise that there are extant words that i've never heard of, but can anybody think of a reason why "autochthonous" should take preference over a word like "indigenous" which is easier to understand for most people? Lvprice (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, no one thinks that. You know why? Because its hyperlinked!!! How does one go about learning any word? Like the word 'extant' or 'jargon'? Every day you hear new words which you discover the meaning of and then add to your vocabulary. I now know the word 'autochthonous' I may not ever use this word, however it has now been added to my knowledge. Had this post not included that word, i would not know it. It's how peoples' vocabuliaries and the english language itself expands. Therefore, it is not pointless jargon and it does serve a purpose. Maybe in a year or so that stat will have gone down from 99% to 98%. Shame on you for attempting to deprive fellow wikipedia readers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.42.219 (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not write the page in bosnian? think of all the new words we could learn. Lvprice (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah but how will that benifit the english speakers? They don't want to learn Bosnian words. They, like me, want to learn more english words... as opposed to you i assume? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.42.219 (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Genetics in History section

Hi, given the important role in Balkan nationlism of proving that one's own ethnic group is descended from the region's original inhabitants (thereby implying that other, competing, ethnic groups are invaders) I find the genetics discussion in the History section somewhat disturbing. Only stating that Bosniaks are the genetic descendants of the original inhabitants of Bosnia could be interpreted in this light.

• As a first step I have gone ahead and added the comment that all othe ethnic groups in Bosnia also originate from the 'aboriginal'/pre-Slav population of Bosnia.
• As a second step I think the article should state that there really is no significant genetic difference between Bosniaks and other ethnic groups in Bosnia. How about that?
• Or, even better (though I know there has been a long and seemingly inconclusive discussion on the topic here) I would like to take out the genetics section alltogether.Osli73 (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Genetically speaking, the majority of Bosniaks would fall under the Croatian category. Politics and religion aside, Bosniaks have the haplotype M170 mutation, known as subclade I2a (formerly eu7, I1b1). Note that this should be mentioned, even if it offends someone. We're here to get the truth out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.137.84 (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You are severly misinterpreting the genetic data. The only truth is that you are not capable of evaluating genetic data. The croats are not the sole carriers of the I2a subclade, this subclade does not belong specifically to a so-called "croat nation". Moreover, quoting: "I2a2 is typical of western South Slav populations, especially in Dalmatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina (45 - 50%)", and underlining that this so-called - according to you - "croat haplotype" is low in northern croatia and zagreb, but high in southern dalmatia and bosnia. Then either those croats in zagreb are less croats than bosniaks according to you, ey? Haha, get out here! Very chauvinistic indeed. 83.254.130.253 (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

The truth about the distribution, since you had to use that term, is that I2a frequancy peeks in Dalmatia, and the variance in Bosnia, in an area, in which it still occurs with 50%+ percent frequency, and which is not predominantly Croat. The commonly cited 70 % frequency is for Herzegovinian and Dalmatian Croats only.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/10/1964/FIG3

A little more than 1/3 of the Croatian sample from the mainland Croatia belong to I2a clade (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v11/n7/pdf/5200992a.pdf). For the founder effect both variance and frequency are important. These are extermaly high in the Bosna valley - an inconvenient truth that is often ignored, justified by higher frequencies farther to the South, which are almost exclusively Croat areas, yes, but more importantly, which are also better protected by the Dinarides. Therefore, you defeated a straw man argument.

I also cannot resist but to pick up some of the arguments presented above: First of all labels 'Croats', or 'Serbs' for that matter, did not even exist when people who harbored I2a, populated the area for the first time. Bosniaks, for all groups that they have assimilated over the course of their history, still harbor close to 50% of the haplogroup I in their population. Bosnian, Herzegovinian and Dalmatian Croats, on the other hand, in many ways tend to be the most seclusive of the 3 groups in Bosnia even today - which would explain high I haplogroup frequencies. Also, we never see the distances between the Serbs in Bosnia and, say, southern Serbia (where we find hardly any haplogroup I, but rather E, followed by R and J), it would show quite a different picture - indeed one would be hard pressed to even find a pattern, or a 'dominant haplogroup', within Serbs. Moreover, Croats are split into two areas: the norhtern part is predominatly R, the southern part is predominantly I. And, yes, curiously enough, the 50%+ areas on the map would be completely covered by Tvrtrko's medieval Bosnia, which, I guess, he must have done intentionally in order to irritate some people today.

I think maybe we should avoid using genetics, because people don't understand them. What people don't realize is that Y chromosome haplogoups are but 1 of many, many genetic loci. They are currently in vogue. But they are bad because they give a false impression that there a well delineated regional patterns of Haplogroups. If we look at autosomal data, then it would show that all ex-Yugoslavs are nearly genetically identical, an in turn, are very similar to Romanians, Bulgarians, etc. Hardly ground-breaking stuff

But if we must talk about Y Hgs, then yes, as someone above stated, Hg I2 is particular to the Dalmatian coast/ Herzegovinia. So Herzegovinian Croats and Serbs are more 'similar' to each other than to Croat and Serbs from Zagreb and Belgrade, respectively. Again, hardly revolutionary. Hxseek (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

07:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Genetics / Origin

E3b1 12.9
I1a 4.7
I1b 43.5
R1a1 15.3
R1b 3.5
J1 2.4
J2* 2.4
j2e 2.4
j2f* 3.5
j2f1 1.2
F 3.5
G 3.5
K 1.2

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

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

Not sure how to upload a picture..

chart

ima li neko da stavi ovu sliku u clanak?

Bosniaks emerged as a distinct (Slavic group OR Muslim people) in the fourteenth century

Hello. I did not want to start and edit war, so i decided to start a discussion here - so can we please stop reverting until we agree on the wording.

In the history section, I believe it should say "Bosniaks emerged as a distinct Slavic group in the fourteenth century", rather than "Muslim people".

The reason for this is because before the 14th century, all people in the Balkans were not really distinct from one another; that is to say, all of the people were known as "Slavs" but some carried regional names, such as "Bosnian", or "Dalmatian", etc, but this was different from a national name, as none were regarded as seperate natins at the time.

From 14th century onwards, Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats became readily identifiable, so that is why it says they emerged as distinct in 14th century - just like the rest of the section explains, Bosniak history extends centuries earlier than the 14th, but it was at this time they became a separate people clearly different culturally from the other Balkan peoples.

Another reason is, that if it says "Muslim", many people, especially native English speakers, will think it means only Muslims are Bosniaks and Islam is the only thing that separates them - which is not true.

Cheers. 58.169.162.12 (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, mate, but the only reason why Bosniaks came to be Bosniaks were the fact that they are Muslim. I heavily doubt you will find a Bosniak that isn't a Muslim, or that doesn't have a Muslim ancestor. The Bosniaks developed a language of their own overtime, incorporating many Turcisms with Serbian and Croatian, making it a mere hybrid of Serbo-Croatian and Turkish. Bosniaks have a culture that is similar to that of Serbs and Croats, but it is also heavily influenced by Turkish culture as well. So all in all, you can say that Bosniaks are a Turkish hybrid of Slavs. Sadly, this is coming from a person of Bosniak origin, too. --Prevalis (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a fundamental mistake to equate religion with ethnicity. Unfortunately, Bosniaks are constantly referred to as "Muslims" or "Bosnian Muslims". Sadly, that is the same religious, quasi-denominational ethnic terminology - "Muslims" - as the Serbian nationalistic rhetoric used and still does use when referring to the Bosniaks, instead of the proper ethnic term "Bosniaks" for this distinct ethnic group or people.

Bosniaks - along with the Serbs and Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina - have their own distinct language, culture and history. Referring to them as Muslim is not only imprecise, it denies them their existence as an ethnic group altogether. While this may seem like a trifling distinction to the general reader, it is important to note that this imprecision has been intentionally exploited to commit acts of genocide against ethnic Bosniaks (see the February 2007 official judgment by the International Court of Justice at The Hague). Calling Bosniaks "Muslims" was specifically designed by Serbian nationalists to lessen the sympathy other Europeans might feel for the plight of a "non-European" people.

The fact that an entire national, ethic group is named and labeled as a religious group especially in the complex, often xenophobic and competing web of the Balkan nationalist politics, has a negative echo and has been and is still being used as a justification for war, war crimes and acts of genocide. PRODUCER (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Muslims by nationality was not "designed by Serbian nationalists", but by Yugoslav Communists. About 100,000 of them still declare themselves as Muslims. Croats called them Muslims (among other names) during the war, while they brutally slaughtered each other, and often call them like that today.

I wonder how is it that a brotherhood-and-unity supporter (as you declared yourself) has such a one-sided viewpoint. VVVladimir (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You misinterpreted me, I wasn't referring to Muslims by nationality during the Yugoslavia era rather I was referring to the way Serb nationalists portrayed Bosniaks as Islamic outsiders during the Bosnian war. PRODUCER (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you were referring to. You wrote: 'Calling Bosniaks "Muslims" was specifically designed by Serbian nationalists...' Well, they introduced Bosniaks in Semptember 1993. Neither Serbs nor Croats automatically switched to calling them Bosniaks in the middle of the war. They just kept calling them Muslims - there is no need that "Serbian nationalists" make any special design to do that.

You keep referring to "Serbian nationalists", as "Serb nationalists portrayed Bosniaks as Islamic outsiders". Were Croat nationalists softer on them? Or were there no Croat nationalists during the war, according to you? All in all, what you write indicates a bias not expected from a brotherhood-and-unity supporter, at least according to how brotherhood-and-unity was officially declared. VVVladimir (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Correction, the term "Bosniak" was reintroduced in 1993. I don't ever recall Bosnians ever calling themselves Bosniaks before 1993, but I am for certain that Sandžaklije called themselves Bosniaks throughout the 20th century and earlier. VVVladimir, sadly, brotherhood and unity never truly existed in Yugoslavia. Hatred between ethnicities continued since the creation of Yugoslavia, and that is a known fact. Everyone hated one another. Why they chose to be one nation is beyond me. Serbs created Yugoslavia and they ended it. --Prevalis (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know all of that - what the sentence means however, is that Bosniaks are now a distinct group within the Slavic people; not a distinct group of Muslims. 58.169.162.12 (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your statement. Bosniaks aren't another sect of Islam, people. Most Bosniaks are Sunni Muslims. --Prevalis (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

diaspora bosnians

The statistics over persons of Bosnian origin living foreign countries obviously does not refer to Bosniaks. Hence the figures cannot be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.133.189 (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME

I was just wondering folks, if the common name in English for Bosniaks is "Bosnian Muslims" (as the article states), why is this title here? If that is so, the article should be moved per WP:NAME (policy).

• "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing in question."

I imagine this subject came up earlier, so I expect there's a specific naming convention that was quoted in support of the current title? If so, please point it out. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The source used is a CIA website, which doesn't say Bosnian Muslim is the most common name. PRODUCER (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I checked Google. The Google test is more or less a tie, cca. 145,000 for both (with "Bosniaks" slightly in the lead, but with Wiki pages adding to it). Ok, regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Bosniak" is technically not an English word, and the term almost never comes up in newspapers, television, movies etc. It is almost exclusively "Bosnian Muslim" in the English language. All major English news services, such as Reuters, CNN, BBC, News Corp, ABC use "Bosnian Muslim" almost exclusively to refer to Bosniaks. By rights, the article should be named as such, but there were huge edit wars regarding the article name in years past, and it was settled to use the name they use for themselves.

However, as a compromise, it is noted that "Bosnian Muslim" is the most common English term. Stating "it is also known as" implies that both terms are in near equal usage, which is certainly not the case. As for any "Google test", take away the Wikipedia pages, translated Bosnian pages, and forks/mirrors of Wikipedia, "Bosnian Muslim" is by a huge margin the most common English name. 124.179.170.87 (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Bosnian Muslim yields 140 000 Google results, as opposed to Bosniaks which yields 84 600 (with -wikipedia> and -wiki switches). Google books is also in favor of Bosnian Muslims with approx. the same 2:1 ratio, but Google Scholar OTOH is in favor of Bosniaks with the ratio of 1.57. So Bosnian Muslim might be more suitable to general audience and mass media, and Bosniak to scholarly publications such as encyclopedia. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I would agree to that, Ivan. The Merriam-Webster dictionary, used in many English-speaking high schools and universities, especially in Canada and the United States does not have "Bosniak" in it. And, Encyclopaedia Britannica also doesn't have an entry for "Bosniak". Both are highly respected scholarly publications, and they don't have an entry on "Bosniaks". I definitely don't see a huge need for the article to be moved, but it certainly needs to state that the English term is "Bosnian Muslim". 124.179.170.87 (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Google Scholar searches show that Bosniak is quote widespread. Furthermore, it has the advantage of unambiguous attributive use and geographic independence (there are Bosniaks outside the Bosnia proper). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Being widespread, or not, isn't the point. The point is "Bosnian Muslim" is the correct English term, and this must be reflected in the article. And since this point is reflected in the article's lead, then there is really no point to this discussion. 124.179.170.87 (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm, my point was that if indeed the proper English term is "Bosnian Muslims", per dictionary use, the title of the article should be altered to match. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "correct English term", as English is not regulated by any institution or dictionary - the usage determines the "correctness". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

In any case, "Bosnian Muslim" is the correct term, as it is used near 100% of the time. Even the ICTY referred to them as Bosnian Muslims. I'm not pushing for an article name change, as I really think ethnic group articles should be named as the people name themselves (I mean, we don't use "Gypsy" for the Romani people, yet most English speakers only know the first term). I just firmly believe it is right to note in the lead section that "Bosnian Muslim" is the preferred English term. 124.179.170.87 (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole discussion Bosniaks vs Bosnian Muslims in the so-called English speaking media is absurd and grotesque at best.

The people are called Bosniaks so to call them something else just shows the lack of respect and ignorance which is present in the so-called western media.

Moreover, to call someone something that they are not is actually lying and this happens everyday in the so-called western media.

The so-called western media is notorious for systematically lying and spreading propaganda and using manipulation and this is just another example of that.

Other recent example include Iraq, Afghanistan and of course the so-called Gaza war some months ago. Zec (Zec) 24:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's entirely untrue. If anything, the west was most sympathetic to the Muslims because they were presented as the innocent and besieged. The term 'Bosniaks' is slowly coming to be used. The muslims of Bosnia only created this identity for themselves less than 10 years ago. Do you really expect western media to pre-empt this in someway ? Hxseek (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious?

You're putting claims from Muhamed Filipović and Adil Zulfikarpašić who are btw Bosnian Muslims that there are no Bosnian Croats nor Bosnian Serbs, but only Bosnian Catholics and Orthodox Bosnians. But you don't see the irony here, Muhamed Filipović is a Croat by origin (see Franjo Filipović a.k.a. Delipop) and he claims that there are no Bosnian Croats, hehehe funny.

Putting this claim in this article about Bosnian muslims (I don't call them Bosniaks, because they stole that name 16 years ago) is ridiculous. How would you feel if I put a reference to Vojislav Šešeljs claims that there are no Bosnian Muslims, only Muslim Serbs.

I haven't read the history part of the article yet who know what I'll find there. I suggest that you remove the silly claims from Muhamed Filipović and Adil Zulfikarpašić because they don't belong to a serious article, but if you don't remove it I wouldn't mind, then it would be a silly article about a silly nation(?!). Stürmkrieger (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is someone constantly reverting my deletion of Muhamed Filipović and Adil Zulfikarpašić claim from the article, don't revert or I'll ask for a third opinion. Stürmkrieger (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Turks"

Why is it "nonsense" to remark a fact, and a fact that was actual a hundred years ago? --VKokielov (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be as nearly nonsense as this to remark, in an article about Jews in Russia, that they were once called "Zhidy" everywhere and by everybody in Russia -- and this keeping in mind that the Jews were never the ruling class anywhere. --VKokielov (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen/read hundreds of videos/testimonies in different trials about hatred among Serbs for Bosnian Muslims. Many Serbian radicals even today define Bosnian Muslims as Turks. Ratko Mladic before genocide he and his Army committed said they were going to kill Turks in Srebrenica. That irrational or abnormal behaviour shouldn't be mentioned in introduction, not even on the way you tried, though I think you also tried to insult Bosnian Muslims but on different sophisticated way. ICTYoda (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. Its usage is highly derogatory nowadays, and perhaps it should be mentioned somewhere but certainly not in the lead. Most Bosniaks don't think of them as "Turks", and it would be absurd to claim otherwise on the basis of a few cherry-picked "testimonies". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I give in.  :) (Is that allowed?..) In any case, far be it from me to pass judgment. If I'm allowed to analyze my own motivation, then I'll say I wanted to do it only because it was once the usual name, and we should remark it in case some hapless curious person stumbles upon a travels book from 1870 on Google Books and wonders to where has all this conglomeration of Turks from Bosnia run away. --VKokielov (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I'll add in my defense that the position of the raja vis-a-vis the Muslims was the usual state of affairs in the old world and is still the state of affairs today, almost everywhere. It has nothing to do with Muslims or Christians that the strong have the power. --VKokielov (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

History

When I read history, i saw how stupid it is you're connecting Bosnian muslims with medieval Bosnian kingdom. They don't have any songs about the kings of Bosnia, they don't have any flag that has a lilly on it, here is a link to pictures of Bosnian muslims from the A-U period, you can see the pictures. http://www.hercegbosna.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=723&start=0

But I don't care so much about that you can connect your Bosnian muslim identity with the Illyria for all I care, but I will remove the stupid parts I will quote them: "Following the idea that religious orientation equates with ethnic origin, Bosnian Catholics came to identify with the Croatian nation whilst those that were Orthodox identified with the Serbian nation, giving rise to what we now call "Bosnian Croats" and "Bosnian Serbs". The Islamic Bosnians by and large did not align with neither Serbian nor Croatian nationality, but continued to put Islam Bosnia at forefront of their consciousness."

This is propaganda from Muhamed Filipović and Adil Zulfikarpašić and it doesn't belong to a wiki article, and also the claim that "islamic Bosnians by and large did not align with niether Serbian nor Croatian nationality", what were the Islamic Croats in NDH, can you please explain. I'll remove this. Stürmkrieger (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Language

Wtf? Listen to this:

"Bosniaks have also had two of their own unique scripts. The first was the Begovica (also called Bosančica), a descendant of local Cyrillic script that remained in use among the region's nobility. The second was the Arabica, a version of the Arabic alphabet modified for Bosnian that was in use among nearly all literate Bosniaks until the 20th century (compare with Morisco Aljamiado). Both alphabets have almost died out, as the number of people literate in them today is undoubtedly minuscule."

This is utter stupidity, Bosančica is not an unique Bosnian muslim script, it is used among Croats as well, the only unique script of Bosnian muslims is arabica. Bosančica is also called rvasko pismo, arvatica, arvacko pismo in Povaljska istina and Poljički statut, so I'll remove this.Stürmkrieger (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, bosančica was certainly not unique to Bosnian Muslims, given its vast regional spread, but it was in use for a long time so it should be at least mentioned. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand you, are you trolling? bosančica was never used by Bosnian muslims, if you can find a Bosnian muslim document that uses bosančica you can put back bosančica in the language section. Stürmkrieger (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Citing from Croatian Wikipedia: bosančica je bila u porabi daleko pretežno (iako ne potpuno isključivo) u konfesionalnim krugovima krstjanskim, katoličkim i muslimanskim. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Here (a heavily-biased Croatian nationalist website, who'd hardly lie on such a thing) you can find images of bosančica being used by Bosnian begs, in correspondence with Dubrovnikan nobility. So please-no more unilateral removals of everything you perceive as "wrong". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes I knew bosančica was used by Beys but it wasn't used by Bosnian muslims, plus they had no literal works in bosančica, so what does make bosančica a unique Bosnian muslim script? Stürmkrieger (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And begs were not Bosnian Muslim? ^_^ I never claimed it was unique (and that qualifier should be removed where bosančica was mentioned). Bosnian Muslim cultural elite during the Ottoman era primarily wrote their works not in Slavic, but in Turkish, Persian and Arabic, all in Arabic script, so it's understandable that no significant literary works have been preserved in bosančica. But it's absurd to claim that it was not used at all by Bosnian Muslims at that time - it was and they were familiar with it. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well this article isn't about Bosnian beys, its about Bosnian muslim (or as they call themselves Bosniak) people. And you're basing your claim that Bosnian muslims used bosančica because of some letters written between XVI. and XVII. century. Most of these letters were written to Croats, but if you want it so much in the article, I can write something like this:

"Bosančica was also used by Bosniaks but mostly among nobility (beys)"

What say you? Stürmkrieger (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

99% of the common people were illiterate back them, and only nobility and upper classes (merchants, clerics and other parasites) could've used it in the first place. So emphasizing "only among nobility" would be creating a false opposition that didn't exist in the real world. I'd be the happiest if someone actually dig a reference on the usage of bosančica among Bosniaks, I personally have no literature on it.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that's the problem Bosnian muslims used bosančica very rarely, so you can't dig many references, only these letters. I claim that Bosnian muslims didn't use this script because they don't have any documents or literature in it, but you'll probably say it's because Arabic was used, and we can go around in circles like that.

"Bosnian beys also had their own version of bosančica which was called begovica, but it was rarely used."

If the sentence above that I mentioned doesn't work, what suggestions do you have about keeping bosančica in the Language section? Stürmkrieger (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Important dates to Bosniaks

• "Death of Katarina Kosača-Kotromanić, last Bosnian Queen, in exile in Rome"

This is an utter lie, the death of Katarina Kosača is not important to Bosnian muslims.

Her death is important to Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina, women in Kraljeva Sutjeska still wear black scarfs in memory of Katarina Kosača. Also Katarina, in her last will states that she leaves Bosnia and Herzegovina to her children in case they convert back to Catholic faith, but in case they don't convert she leaves Bosnia and Herzegovina to Vatican.

I know Bosnian muslims are doing everything they can to connect to the medieval Bosnian kingdom, but to lie like this is just pathetic, so I'll delete this. Stürmkrieger (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bosniak leaders who declare themselves as Turks

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosniaks&diff=303394056&oldid=303368314

Why is this beeing deleted??--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it's not really a material for the article lead, and it bears somewhat derogatory overtones. Quite contrary to what would that paragraph insinuate, most of the Bosniaks do not consider themselves "Turks", and the source of football fans shouting pro-Turkish exclamations hardly represent an encyclopaedic and representative reference. Cerić's statement has apparently instigated quite a controversy in the very sources that are listed as citing it, so simply providing with without context would be violating NPOV. However, I do think that the identification of present-day Bosniaks as "Turks" in the historical period deserves mentioning, but with proper references and without implied mockery. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not say "most" ... I said "some Bosniaks" -certain number of them-not irrelevant--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources

John Fine's chapter in Islam and Bosnia provides a good outline about the religious -ethnic situation throughout Bosnia's history. Hxseek (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

For all the HATERS and "concerned editors" !

Stürmkrieger, Añtó| Àntó, VKokielov to name few, you are free to develop a private website and tell everyone what you think and feel about Bosnia and Bosniaks ! Thats quite common, you open your blog and start writing about what ever you feel or believe in.

So, I am absolutely convinced that these editors (and probably some others) visiting this article on a regular basis only as a SPOILERS and without an attempt, efort or desire to improve the text. Fact is, that requires lot of patience and energy on their part, but directed in a single purpose with a negative effect, it should be considered baning such a text entry after persistent vandalizam and/or bad faith.

However, I have a question for those editors, who maintains and keep this article, and I bet, quite suprising one:

• What about the Bosniaks like me, who do not belong to the Muslim religion or have any Islamic family background? You certainly do not allow any possibility that we can identify as Bosniaks, or even to exist at all. I don't like your position on this matter, you are not politicians, you should be little bit more flexible on this issue. Also, please don't confuse Bosnian and Bosniak in this case; I mean Bosniak as Muslim, Orthodox, Catholic or atheist, beside our fellow citizen and neighbors Croats and Serbs.

Therefore, I appealing or rather requesting that you incorporate in the article at least a chance of our existance, and I hope that you won't invoke arguments for the contrary, like the Constitution or number of the Non-Muslim Bosniak population, etc.

• • Comment - I visit Kraljeva Sutjeska and Bobovac often with my Bosniak Muslim and non-Muslim friends. We also visiting place on every Oct.25 or last Friday in August, when and as frequently as we are able, to honor Queen Catherine - it is simply a question of personal sensibility toward our homeland Bosnia, identity and our ancestries.--Santasa99 (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If i didn't have any manners I would insult you now, but I won't.

I don't care which religion you are confessing, but this article isn't about you, It's about Bosnian muslims or as they call themselves Bosniaks, who are predominantly muslim, so don't be ignorant. Bosniak catholics hihihihihi please be serious, I know they exist, but don't you know that muslim Croats also exist, but they both number about 500 people in Bosnia and Herzegovina and they aren't important since there are 2 000 000 muslim Bosniaks.

You have no arguments, your arguments are hear-say about Kraljeva Sutjeska. That is not an argument, I will remove your edits until you find a proper argument.

I found this link I suggest you read it http://www.vjesnik.com/Html/2003/03/03/Clanak.asp?r=sta&c=3. It's quickest one I can find right now about Kraljeva Sutjeska. I hope you will be able to read it, I mean Croatian isn't that different from your "Bosnian".Stürmkrieger (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As everyone knows, "Bosniaks" is a term recently appropriated by Bosnian Muslims (including atheist Bosnians with an Islamic background) to refer to themslevs. You would have to provide a source which states that there are Bosniak Catholics or Orthodox Hxseek (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hxseek, wtf? There are aren't any Bosnian catholics, or at least not a big number, I doubt it has three digets, so why is it important to put that in this article? Those people are mostly from mixed marriages and not important to this article. If we are to put that in the article, there shouldn't be the religion part since most people have minorities in different religions, but that doesn't matter because they (Bosnian muslims) are mostly (95%+) sunni muslim. So your opinion and the opinion of the "genius" called Santasa99 aren't right.Stürmkrieger (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about ? Can't you read ? Hxseek (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I can. I won't quote Santasa99 because his comment was too long, so I'll make it short. He said that Bosnian catholics and orthodox exist, and requested that we incorporate that in the article. And then you said: "You would have to provide a source which states that there are Bosniak Catholics or Orthodox" I thought that you are saying to him that if he can find sources he can put it in the article, did I musunderstand? If i did then I'm sorry but I don't really have time to read the whole comment, in this case I was focusing on the Kraljeva Sutjeska part.Stürmkrieger (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't see why it isn;t worth mentioning in a quick sentence or two. Every 'nation' does have religious minorities worth mentioning briefly, and articles here tend to do so . Hxseek (talk) 04:42, 21 August 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)

you are right! the truth is Turkey rarely do the population census and when doing so, they only count the number of people but not ethnicity! So people around the world will have no idae how many kurds are living in turkey and so with the other ethnic groups.

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)

I can say Kovac is a hungarian origin. Kovac means "smith" in magyar and many Croatian use the name Kovac.