Talk:Bosnian language/Archive 2

Edit war

Erm, what's the big deal with this edit war? Most of the changes are cosmetic/stylish, except the inclusion of Ban Kulin charter, which should go in. I removed some argumentative text ("it ain't as old as some other documents but it's very old"), and rephrased it somewhat (it's not certain whether it's the oldest official text, at least without a source, so it's better to err on the side of caution). I find the "spoken by" expression simpler and less pompous than "native to" so I took that back as well. OK? Duja► 14:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Constantine the Philosopher

The article talks about something written by a certain "Constantine the Philosopher" in the summer of 1300. There were only two such people: one is Saint Cyril himself from the 9th century and the other is a Serbian writer from the end of the 14th and the first half of the 15th century.

There is no other Constantine the Philosoper. --PaxEquilibrium 02:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it refers to Saint Cyril, since he was a lingust. Vseferović 23:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Cyril was born in 827 and died in 869. --PaxEquilibrium 23:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is surely not the Serbian one. So it must be saint cyril, I belive however that there is yet another Constantin, but I might be wrong and that "saint cyril" in fact is just another name for the very same linguist. I will change to the new date for now and look closer into the matter within the nearest days. However, as I saw it more text than just this one was changed, stating that "Bosnian language" is a language of Bosnians - which of course is correct, but not when "bosnians" refer to all inhabitants of Bosnia. This is unconstitutional since Bosnian law and dayton recognizes exclusively the Bosnian language as the language of Bosniaks. Ancient Land of Bosoni

How are you so sure it's not the Slavic one (the dates correspond to 1300 more than Saint Cyril)?

If there truly was yet another Constantine that was entitled "the Philosopher", I don't think that he's famous at all (not even one bit).

Sorry, I didn't understand what you meant with your last (two) sentence(s). --PaxEquilibrium 20:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've looked the http://www.zemljabosna.org and it says that a certain Byzantine writer Constantine the philosopher wrote "Skazanie iziavljeno o pismenah" at the end of the 14th century, so it actually perfectly fits the Slavic one... however I also found that the page from which I took is slightly controversial (who is this Constantine the Philosopher?). --PaxEquilibrium 20:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Pax check your talkpage, I left a message. =) Ancient Land of Bosoni

Yeah, saw it; thanks. --PaxEquilibrium 15:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I created the article on the said Konstantin Filozof recently, unrelated with this discussion. Somehow I have the feeling that his alleged reference to the "Bosnian" as such has spread like an urban myth. I'd really like to see the excerpt from Skazanije -- it should is likely relatively easy to find (perhaps not on the internet, but the text seems relatively famous). That Constantine [of Kostenets] is nicknamed "Filozof" after st. Cyril for his erudition, and as such known in Ex-Yu republics (Bulgarians more often refer to him as "Konstantin Kostenechky") Duja► 13:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get how could've he written something almost a century before his birth. ;))) --PaxEquilibrium 19:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Arebica / alhamijado

Can somebody please add some more detailed information in arebica script? I don't live in BiH, but I imagine that there is a lot of good information on Arebica in libraries in that country. Can some Wikipedian from that country please add detailed information on Arebica?

Official recognition in the Dayton Accord and Constitution?

One paragraph in the "Controversy" section makes two factual claims that are demonstrably false:

"It is important to observe that the Dayton Peace Accord officially recognizes and specifies the Bosnian language as a distinct language spoken in Bosnia and Herzegovina by Bosniaks."

I have read that accord, and so can you: http://www.ohr.int/dpa/default.asp?content_id=380

It does not say anything about any status of any language at all.

(It did, historically, make a strong implied statement by being originally delivered in four languages. That is not the same thing at all.)

"As such the Bosnian language is officially recognized by constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well."

I have read that constitution, and so can you: http://www.ccbh.ba/eng/p_stream.php?kat=518

It does not say anything about any status of any language at all.

81.17.231.158 15:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

SERBOCROATIAN IS ONE LANGUAGE!

http://arhiv.slobodnadalmacija.hr/20060207/kultura01.asp

the above is the link to the article published in 'Liberated Dalmatia', a newspaper from Split, Dalmatia in 2006;

RAZGOVOR Prof. dr. IVO PRANJKOVIĆ, UGLEDNI JEZIKOSLOVAC, SUAUTOR NEDAVNO OBJAVLJENE GRAMATIKE HRVATSKOGA JEZIKA Hrvatski i srpski su jedan jezik VARIJETETI ISTOGA Na standardološkoj razini, hrvatski, srpski, bosanski, pa i crnogorski jezik različiti su varijeteti, ali istoga jezika. Dakle, na čisto lingvističkoj razini, odnosno na genetskoj razini, na tipološkoj razini, radi se o jednom jeziku i to treba jasno reći

Here’s the translation of the main title and the introduction article of this interview:

INTERVIEW: PROF.DR. IVO PRANJKOVIC, THE FAMOUS LINGUIST AND CO-AUTHOR OF THE RECENT PUBLISHED, GRAMMAR OF CROATIAN LANGUAGE’.

CROATIAN AND SERBIAN ARE ONE LANGUAGE! VARIETIES OF IT: On a standard level, Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and now Montenegrin language are just varieties, but from a same language. Therefore, pure linguistically and typologically they are all ONE LANGUAGE and it should be said very clearly!

The rest of the text just confirms what’s in the title and the main article. In spite of all sick nationalists and evil propagators:-SERBOCROATIAN IS ONE LANGUAGE AND WILL STAY ONE FOREVER!CHEERS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.127.107 (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Croatian_language"

As a speaker of Serbo-Croatian I can tell you it IS the same language if you call it Serbian, Bosnian or Croatian. It would be like going to London from Brooklyn and saying the Londoner would need an interpreter in Brooklyn 4.142.96.105 19:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)eric

"Serbocroatian" in communist era

I put fact tag on this sentence, because it contradicts the general knowledge. The language was called as such even before (from Vienna accord, 1850, but not exclusively). --Plantago 09:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I got an Idea how about just call the language Yugoslavian....It make it real easy

Why not Yugoslavian? Becasue ex-Yugoslavia contained Macedonia and Slovenia as well.

Yes it is the same language but Bosnians have just as much a right to call it Bosnian as Croats and Serbs have to call it by their ethnic nationality.

"Jargon"

Could someone explain the reference to "jargon" at the end of the page? Thanks. Jpaulm 19:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Name Again

I cannot understand how the article under this name still exists. After Dayton peace it was settled that there is no such thing as Bosnian nation; that the state of Bosnia belongs to Serbs and Croats as much as it does to Slavic Muslims who now call themselves Bošnjaks (Boshnyaks, Bosniaks, whatever). Therefore it is not acceptable for Bošnjaks to call themselves Bosnians when stating an ethnicity. I do not understand why the same approach is not applied to language. Tzuppy 23:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

POV

The beginning of the article, historical bit, is slightly POV. --PaxEquilibrium 19:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

JOKE

When is this joke about former Yugslav "languages" going to end. It is really quite comical, and the so-called "authors" are just nationalist pseudo-scientific charicatures. It is so obvious all this language division is political, in order for people X to intentionally seperate themselves from Y, and they even go back and find 'historical proofs' , by finding single words here and there that are peculiar to the region. I mean, every modern city has words and slang of its own, so by such reasoning New York and LA speak different languages.

Every realistic person surely realises that the South slavic languages are merely a continuum of one language, with regional pecularities here and then, that would naturally develop over centuries of differing external influences. The Serbo-Croatian continuum has less variance than, eg, Sicillian would compared to Milanese. if we had to seperate them realistically and according to real liguistics, then at best we could seperate them into western south slavic dialects (slovenian,stokovian, ikvian, etc) vs eastern south slavic (bulgarian, macedonian - which admitedly were probably one language anyway) Hxseek (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hxseek, respect other nations. Respect national feelings, Hxseek. Croats and Serbs have, before politics began messing, called their languages with their national name. No Frankenstein coined terms.
The term "Serbo-Croatian" is heavily politically compromised, so please, don't use it.
In this sentencence you've said: "...with regional pecularities here and then, that would naturally develop over centuries of differing external influences.", you've dropped out of consideration that these languages were articially (last 2 centuries), and in periods, violently made "closer".
Further, you don't make the differences between the dialect (Štokavian) and the speech (Ikavian; Ikavian speech appears among the speakers of all three Croatian dialects: Štokavian, Čakavian and Kaykavian). Regarding "Eastern South Slavic", you've forgotten to add Eastern Serbian dialects (Torlakian), that are much closer to Bulgarian and Macedonian, than to the speech of Šumadija.
Calling wiki-users as "nationalist pseudo-scientific charicatures" is a personal attack to all contributors here.
"This division is policital". No, Hxseek, that merging attitude was and is political violence against natural language development.
"The Serbo-Croatian continuum has less variance than, Sicilian and ... Milanese." Really? You find locals of Vis and Niš perfectly communicating? Or Bednja and Požarevac? Kubura (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The differences between dialects are just as great within the countries (take Dalmacija vs Međimurje, for example) as they are between the countries. And "respect for national feelings" should have no effect on determining the truth. The fact is that the standard Croatian and Serbian languages are extremely similar; they can hardly be called two different languages, and the idea of a "Bosnian language" is laughable. Tapir (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they're even much more greater within the territory of Croatia, then between the countries in general. Kajkavian speech of e.g. Bednja, and some archaic Northern Čakavian of e.g. Krk are mutually unintelligible, whilst modern standard Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian/Montenegrin are 100% mutually intelligible. It's a common myth that B/C/S/M are "different but closley related dialects" - they're not, they're the same dialect (Štokavian), and even the same subdialect (Neoštokavian). Čakavian, Kajkavian and Torlakian are on the route to extinction for the last 4-5 centuries. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It was not my intention to criticise individuals, but rather the whole idea. People are certainly entitled to national feelings, but passing them off as if it were some documented fact is a bit laughable. Even without the so-called 'forced assimilation' of languages, the speech would probably be very similar. In fact the whole area of linguistics has been called a farce of an academic discipline by some. Hxseek (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Favored alphabet of Muslim Bosniaks

I gather that the dividing line in Serbo-Croatian was that the Orthodox typically used Cyrillic letters, while the Roman Catholics used Roman letters. Have the Muslims typically used one predominately? If so, which? Boris B (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Muslims favour the Latin (Roman) alphabet, using it predominately. --Prevalis (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian language - spoken by ethnic Bosnians

what is with ethnic Bosnians...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by King.tvrtko (talk • contribs) 10:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian is speak in Spain? Come on, LOL.

Spoken just about everywhere :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.231.191 (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Spoken in: Bosnia and Herzegovina,

Serbia,
Montenegro,
Kosovo,
Croatia,
Republic of Macedonia,
Slovenia,

and by immigrant communities in

Germany,
Sweden,
Denmark,
Austria,
Canada,
United States,
Belgium,
Switzerland,
Spain

I don't know about the situation of this "self-proclaimed" language in other countries of the list in the article, but in Spain, Bosnian is not speak. Seriously, if Bosnian is considered speak in Spain, spanish is speak in all and every of the countries in the world by the inmigrants of Spain and Hispanic America, so include spanish in the "spoken languages" section in all of the Country articles in the wikipedia, ok? And modify the entrance of the spanish language article to include all countries of the world.

I really think that it will be more intelligent for all of us not to try to "manipulate" the articles for nationalism reasons. Sorry for my poor english. (Tangopolis (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

I agree that imigrants shouldn't be counted into "speaking languages" of other countries where they setteled.Only if the immigrant population is very large and becomes recognized.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Latin alphabet only

Near the beginning of this article it says that the Bosnian language is nearly always written in the Latin alphabet and that Cyrillic is mainly for historical purposes. I am aware of the differences (or lack of differences) between Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin but surely the language spoken in Republika Srpska is Bosnian. Everywhere one travels in the RS one sees the Cyrillic alphabet used as standard in notices, signs, newspapers and generally all public life. In the Federation the opposite is true. Of course if we're claiming that the language spoken in RS is in fact Serbian then I'll accept that the Bosnian language is nearly always written in the latin alphabet but this would just make the petty arguements on this page even more difficult.--217.201.203.131 (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of speakers

Dear IP address, please don't pump the number of speakers by 2, 2.5M. There are not that much Bosniaks on this planet. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

recent additions by User:Ancient Land of Bosoni

It's ridiculous to see Bosniak extremists taking Croatian and Serbian cultural heritage and incorporating it into this "Bosnian language". Some comments:

• The oldest remnant of the languages Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian (the Humac tablet) found is written in this script. - No, Bosnian language is not the language of Bosnia - it's the codified language of Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims). Using the term Bosnian in linguistically geographical sense is anachronistic today. Humac tablet is not the "oldest attestation of Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian" - linguistically it's completely pointless to speak of individual West South Slavic languages of the 11th/12th century, as in that period all West South Slavic dialects were almost completely mutually intelligible with minor isoglosses dividing them (but the most important ones, like the jat reflexes and the reflexes of vocalized yers were to come only in the following 2 centuries).

Merely an attempt by you to equate the entire region in those ages, probably in order to be able to claim Bosnian heritage (as croatian) and in the process deny it. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you please further explicate this cogitation, as I have problems understanding what exactly is the point you are trying to make. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• The script is of the greatest significance to Bosniak/Bosnian history and linguistics, since it is the one script that is purely native to Bosnia and also links Bosnian medieval monarchy (who used it) with medieval Bosnian religion (who used it first). - Complete nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Western Cyrillic (which is the most NPOV name for the script) is "native to Bosnia". The oldest attestations of Bosančica are in fact from Brač Croatia, (w:hr:Povaljska listina) and from Hercegovina (Humac tablet), and not from Bosnia proper. Croatian Benedictine monastery obviously has nothing to do with "medieval Bosnian religion". Please respect the cultural context of oldest extent linguistic monuments of Western Cyrillic and don't fabricate history to support the Bosniak nationalist fantasies.

Herzegovina (a creation of the 15th century) was actually not existing at the time of these tablets. Nevertheless Croatia was never influencial over these parts of modern-day Herzegovina, the first proper state formation in these areas was the Bosnian kingdom. The Croatian kingdom strecthed itself along the coast, as today, things haven't changed that much. However no matter what you are trying to push, it is a fact that the Bosnian cyrillic script is called that way because 90% of its sources are of Bosnian origin (state documents, churches, steccis..and so on). We on wikipedia cannot accept your nationalistic denial of history, sorry. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The term Herzegovina is certainly of later creation and consistent usage, but is nevertheless sufficiently precise in its modern usage to be used in a reference to the same geographical area of previous ages. I suggest we drop the issue of "influence of Croatia" because that discussion won't take us anywhere. What I am trying to convey here is the reasoning that some of the oldest (and the oldest) and by sheer volume by far the most voluminous monuments of Western Cyrillic are of Croatian cultural provenience, and are in no way connected to medieval Bosnian Church or Bosnian nobility. How do you explain the Glagolitic letters on Humac tablet, or Catholic signature of Povaljska listina? Were their "Bosnians" on Povlja, Brač? :) You can even say, following your own line of thought on Hercegovina, that Bosnia as a state didn't actually exist in the period when Matija Divković and others wrote their Western Cyrillic writings, and that by that time polarization of national (Serb/Croatian/Bosniak) literatures was sufficiently advanced to render all ambiguous all-encompassing "Bosnian" misappropriations like you've doing completely pointless. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The oldest name of that script was hrvaštica, not bosančica. It was used by Croatian noble families connected to Medieval Croatian Kingdom, like Šubić, Kačić, etc. They were certainly not "Bosnian noblemen". A lot material written in that script (13th-15th century) is saved in Dubrovnik historical archives, its users defined their language as ilirski or harvatski, etc, etc, etc... Zenanarh (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• The substantial influence of Bosančica on medieval Bosnia has unfortunately made it a target of controversial debates and propaganda throughout the history of the rivalry between Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats which has led to the tendency of Croats and Serbs to deny it as Bosnian and instead claim it as "theirs" - despite its geographical origin (Bosnia). - playing "victims" of the history are we? Nonsense per above. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, nonsense per above. A reminder: this version which I promote is not my addition, but the version which has been accepted and present for months. Give it up, the humac tablet is purely of Bosnian origin, the Bosnian cyrillic is of BOSNIAN origin. But good luck to you and your Milovesic-fascist fellow linguists from Belgrade. Salute the Ustasha regime. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil, there's no need to be insultive. Calling people "fascists" and "Ustasha" out of the blue will get you blocked in no time. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ancient Land of Bosoni should take a look at the following articles:

• Handžar division
• Džafer-beg Kulenović
• Nahid Kulenović
• Osman Kulenović

Obviously , his babo did not teach him these things. --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. @Ivan Štambuk : I agree mostly with your statements.. but don't erase entire paragraph with pronounciation guide(very well done, btw). That is not matter of a dispute--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it, though that section itself is completely uncited (though much less debatable), and seems to be a blatant copy of Serbo-Croatian_language#Phonology. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well ... GNU license does allow such (blatant) copying. So as long as they are accurate ..let them stay.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Cyrillic alphabet

What is this nonsense about "The Cyrillic alphabet is accepted (chiefly to accommodate for its usage in Bosnia in the past, especially in former Yugoslavia), but seldom used in today's practice."?

Whoever wrote that has obviously not traveled around Bosnia much.
ALL official documents, signs and other texts (including MONEY) are BY LAW required to be written in both Latinic and Cyrillic alphabet, in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Also, do take time and take a trip around Republika Srpska. You will notice MUCH greater use of Cyrillic alphabet. I have even faced some anecdotal cases of Latin and English being thought using Cyrillic alphabet, in Republika Srpska.

Or do you argue that the use of Cyrillic alphabet denotes "translation" into Serbian, or some similar bullshit?
If it is a letter-for-letter "translation" (as is the case with laws, official texts, signs etc) - THAT is not a translation. That is changing the font used.
Each law (etc.) does get "translated" into Croatian though. But even that is less than 30% of words used. Like, names of months, opština-općina, etc.

Hehe an outpost of Hypo Alpe Adria Bank was open in Banja Luka recently (Republika Srpska) in the city centre. On opening ceremony some number of the school kids were given little papers with word "Hypo" written, they're supposed to shout "hypo! hypo!..." when a bank mascot (a man disguised in a big hyppopotamus) came to the ceremony. But they were shouting "nuro! nuro!..." :) Zenanarh (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, two years ago I travelled from Karlovac to Travnik by car. I noticed the following things travelling through the area of Republika Srpska:

• All road signs and other official things were exclusively in cyrillic. (ironic, but in Serbia they are in both scripts. )

but

• Hotels, restaurants ,bars, stores etc. 90% of them had the names exclusively in Latin script.Añtó| Àntó (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying

I added the following text to the Controversy section. I did so because I noticed that a section so entitled does not actually explain what's the controversy.

"The name of the language is a controversial issue for Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs. Of the three Bosnian ethnicities (Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks) only the Bosniak ethnicity speaks the Bosnian language in significant numbers. The heart of the issue is the fact that the terms "Bosnian" and "Bosniak" are not interchangeable. "Bosnian" usually refers to all three ethnicities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, while "Bosniak" refers only to Bosniaks (previously referred to as Bosnian Muslims). The name "Bosnian language" is controversial primarily because it is thought by some to imply it is the language of all Bosnians, which includes Croats and Serbs. Croats and Serbs, however, overwhelmingly speak in Croatian and Serbian, respectively. It should be noted that all three languages are based on the same Neoshtokavian dialect and are thus very similar and mutually intelligible."

May I ask, what is wrong with the text that caused it to be removed? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You may ask of course. Probably you didn't follow earlier discussion, I reverted back because of the alternative name included by Croatian user, despite the fact that language articles have just an official language name, not the one "sometimes used". If you follow that principle, then my friend you will create a mess, next step would be inserting the same remark for Croatian language, by Serbian users who would say that Croatian is sometimes referred as Serbian (there is plenty of sources in Serbian literature), or myself if you want. So your edit was done to confirm earlier edit by other Croatian user, and we are all adults here to spot that...Journalist 007 (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I know my post is rather long, but please bear with me and respond fully so we can have a proper discussion on the issue:
Ok, here's the thing. Some things, including languages, have more than one name in the English language. For example, they can have two names. Now, one of these names is official and is used by a majority of English speakers (which is determined on Wikipedia by the Google test), the other name is also used, but is not the "primary" name. While the first name, the official name (in this case "Bosnian language"), is the one that we'll be using everywhere, the subject of this article includes ALL information on the language. This means that the less common name, used unofficially by some ("Bosniak language"), may and must be included into the text. Why? Simply because it is relevant and within the scope of the article.
In other words: the name "Bosniak language" is unofficial but is still used by many. It is valid, significant information that under no circumstances should be removed from this encyclopedia. Spanish, for example, is also known as "Castillan" in the English language, and both names are noted in the lead, while "Spanish" (being the most common name) is used everywhere else.

That said, I am unable to understand why you removed the whole text if you disagree with a part of it. And no, Croatian is never referred to as "Serbian" by any official organization, only by biased non-professional authors who wouldn't qualify as sources in any event. Your analogy makes little sense. Furthermore, if you think I'm here to support some other editor, you are completely wrong. I have no idea what you're talking about.
The text makes no sense this way, as the "Controversy" section does not explain the controversy. If you read carefully, you will notice that the text I added in no way promotes the name "Bosniak languge", and that it mainly concerns itself with explaining the difference between "Bosniaks" and "Bosnians" (see articles).

You should also take heed of the fact that removing statements that are completely correct and sourced is not allowed by Wiki policy. Simply reverting facts you don't like will not be frutful in the long run, and this issue will be eventually brought under the attention of Admins and other Users. I hope you will allow some kind of mention of an alternative name for the language used far and wide in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and elsewhere. For example: it is completely correct and well sourced to state that:
"Serbian authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, as well as certain elements of the Bosnian Croatian ethnic community in Bosnia and Herzegovina refer to the language as 'Bosniak language'."

In conclusion, I'll ask you again to please point out exactly which part of the text I added is incorrect? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is wrong essentially. Why? Because, you say that the Bosniak language is also another name used sometimes, but the name usage is determined by Bosnian langauge speakers, not by their historical enemies. Btw, this is already placed in Controversy section. As I said before, Croatian langauge is sometimes referred to as Serbian by the Serbs, or Bosnian by the Bosniaks, and very often by Serb politicians, intellectuals, writers etc. Should we include that as well in those articles, in the first sentece? I will not allow any nationalistic acts, by Croats or Serbs towards Bosnian language naming,though they are very very often in Wikipedia, for which I think is a shame for Croats and Serbs, because of their bad image during the war in the world public, in the same way I will not allowed Bosnian or Serbian acts against Croats. Journalist 007 (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how this place works. Your belief is completely unfounded and blatantly wrong. This is Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, the name usage is NOT determined by the Bosnian language speakers, or by their enemies. It is determined by the English language speakers. If a name is used in the English language, at all, it warrants mention. The name "Bosniak language" is indeed used in English. I already explained all this. As I stated above, please read my whole post and respond fully. I ask you again, exactly what part of my post carries incorrect information?
Also, please note that I do not revert in the article out of courtesy and to enable friendly discussion. If I don't revert you, that does not mean I'm not serious here. (I do not care about the Croatian language, this is the article on the Bosnian language. I'd appreciate if you don't mention the silly analogy in this context, as its not really an argument.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the term Bosniak language is also used . The more freqeuntly used is Bosnian language -and therefore it is used as the articles name. I quoted only the sources from English speaking countries (not from ex-yu) . Therefore , (Journalist007 and PRODUCER) your deletions here are vandalism!!--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoah, I recommend you take it easy, Anto. You're essentially right, and removing sourced information may be interpreted as "vandalism", but lets try and keep this calm and civilized. We have a misunderstanding here. User:Journalist 007 was obviously under the wrong impression that language names on Wikipedia are determined by use among the speakers of the language, which is quite incorrect. With any luck we'll clear this mess up shortly and we'll come up with an amiable compromise that won't exclude sourced, accurate information from this article :) (P.S I fixed a few details in the lead to match other language articles, such as French and German, for example.). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I include this sentence in Croatian language article:

"The Croatian language (Croatian: hrvatski jezik), sometimes referred to as Serbian, is a South Slavic language which is used primarily in Croatia, sometimes referred to as Bosnian, because it is used by Bosnian Croats as well."

I will provide the same type of sources you did for "Bosniac" language.

Just answer me the question. Journalist 007 (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets focus on this article for now. If you want to edit the Croatian language article, that's your business, and its a free encyclopedia. However, when you do, you may find many users (not I) that will explain the numerous obvious differences between your example and this debate. The Bosnian language is also referred to as "Serbian" by some, and yet for some reason we're not including that particular name. Why? Because this is not a matter for published sources: this is a matter of notability among English speaking users. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Journalist007, naming of Bosnian language in Croatian/Serbian is very contentious issue that must be mentioned. Naming of Croatian language in Serbian is not hence your logic is not applicable. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Serbs call Croatian "Croatian", he's referring to just the few Greater-Serbian bozos... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The priciple is the same. Croatian nationalists as well as Serbian nationalists insists on Bosniak instead Bosnian. The problem is that Croatian nationalists couldn't accept the Bosnian language, in the same way they couldn't accept existence of Bosnia and Herzegovina when they decided to divide it between Serbia and Croatia. HDZ is Croatian nationalistic party, in the same way, radicals are Serb nationalistic party. Members of both of these parties are convicted in ICTY for their political role in Bosnian war. Journalist 007 (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No it's not quite the same. According to Greater-Serbian radicals (Šešelj & co school of thought), all Štokavian speakers are "Serbs" (it's just they "don't know that", according to them), hence Štokavian is "Serbian", Čakavian is "Croatian" and Kajkavian is "Slovenian". It's just another greater-xxx ideology ridden with flaws (which are conveniently ignored; I've read some Šešelj's books and he calls Čakavian "West Slavic language", even tho 700 year old Čakavian documents are more intelligible to every modern Štokavian speaker then either modern Slovenian or Bulgarian/Macedonian), that has been used to commit ethnic cleansings, nowadays hopefully confined only to a bunch of insane radicals which no one takes seriously.

The Bosnian/Bosniak language issue OTOH originally started when the English version of constitution that contained the formulation Bosniac language [1] was translated to Bosnian as bosanski jezik, which caused an outrage among Croatian and Serbian circles as obviously the non-ethnical, regional term Bosnian was being applied to them too. As it turned out, the term Bosnian language has caught on in English (and other various languages in literal translation), and the equivalent of Bosniak/Bosniac language in literary Serbian, Croatian and some other languages. So you get 99% English-speakers assuming that the Bosnian language is the "language of Bosnia", not codified variety of Serbo-Croatian (Neoštokavian) used by B&H Bosniaks. The Bosnian/Bosniak language issue has been abundantly discussed by prominent Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian language authorities, and has even been mentioned in popular newspapers, which makes it quite a bit more relevant topic to discuss as opposed to some Greater-Serbian fascist ideology (which does it have its own article.

Can we agree not to put it in the lead, but in a separate section in the article, as it is now set up by PRODUCER (considering that the naming controversy is not English but foreign-language one)? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is a google search being used as a source? 88,200 hits come up for Bosnian language [2] while only 787 come up for Bosniak language [3] (the majority of which are either forums or wikipedia clones like this one [4]) these statistics are hardly comparable. PRODUCER (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

About this edit of Journalist 007...

who are these historical enemies of Bosniaks?? About this edit of Journalist 007...

who are these historical enemies of Bosniaks??

• Albanians??
• Hungarians??
• Turks??
• Slovaks??

• Italians??
• Romanians

They all ruse term "Bosniak' language" (not Bosnian) Añtó| Àntó (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Besides having a perfectly adequate number of Google hits for such an obscure language, the term is used in a official capacity by more than a few governments. There's no need to compare the hts with "Bosnian language" because we're not contesting the article's title. "Bosnian language" is the more frequently used term. Remember, we're not "renaming" the language, we're just mentioning an alternative name. The alternative name is used nowhere else. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

787 hits is not adequate enough for it to be mentioned in the first sentence. To do so is misleading and gives the impression that the term Bosniak language (viewpoint of a very small minority) is equal to Bosnian language (the generally accepted term). It may be noted in the "controversy" section, but not in the very first sentence. PRODUCER (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no "rule" that proscribes how many hits a term must have before it may be included in the lead. The name had a number of hits, perfectly ok for an alternative name of an obscure language (even Croatian and Serbian are obscure in English). Alternative names with Google hits are included in leads. I don't see your logic.

However, I'm ok for a compromise. If that bothers you I suppose is ok to take it out of the first sentence. Perhaps we can also place it in a different context to make its use abit clearer.

P.S. Revert the language if you want (while discussions are on), but please don't remove other improvements to the lead. For example, the native name is written "(Bosanski)" not "(Bosnian: Bosanski)" on its own article. I also added a bit of information clarifying that it is primarily the language of Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosniaks (that's ok, right?). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, that's no compromise, PRODUCER... You've completely removed the alternative name from the article :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Argument"

The priciple is the same. Croatian nationalists as well as Serbian nationalists insists on Bosniak instead Bosnian. The problem is that Croatian nationalists couldn't accept the Bosnian language, in the same way they couldn't accept existence of Bosnia and Herzegovina when they decided to divide it between Serbia and Croatia. HDZ is Croatian nationalistic party, in the same way, radicals are Serb nationalistic party. Members of both of these parties are convicted in ICTY for their political role in Bosnian war. Journalist 007 (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to make this as clear as possible: you're essentially starting a discussion on whether or not Croatian and Bosnian are in fact "Serbian". This discussion is completely irrelevant to the question at hand. Saying, "but I could do this then!" is NOT an argument. Let me demonstrate:

I didn't say I could do this then. I said, I would do that, in the case you do it here, because you will give me with your action excuse as well as obligation to do that, because the quality should be the same.Journalist 007 (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The factions of Serbian radical nationalists you are referring to also call Bosnian "Serbian". A lot more than Croatian, mind you. You should probably then add that "alternative term" to this article as well, you know. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Croatian nationalists as well as Serbian nationalists insists on Bosniak instead Bosnian."

I do not care who "insists on Bosniak", it is used in the English language.

In the same way I do not care how Croatian nationalists call Bosnian language. Journalist 007 (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That's ok. But you have to care how English speakers alternatively call the Bosnian language. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• "The problem is that Croatian nationalists couldn't accept the Bosnian language, in the same way they couldn't accept existence of Bosnia and Herzegovina when they decided to divide it between Serbia and Croatia."

I do not care who can or can not "accept the Bosnian language", still less the "existence of BiH". The term is used in the English language.

The term Serbian is also used in English, but for Croatian. Journalist 007 (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? Prove it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• "HDZ is Croatian nationalistic party, in the same way, radicals are Serb nationalistic party. Members of both of these parties are convicted in ICTY for their political role in Bosnian war."

bla bla bla bla... :)

Yeah sure. The truth hurts. Journalist 007 (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh the pain! Yes, you're right, they ARE "nationalistic" (nationalist) parties. But that has zero relevance to this question. Which is why I repeat: bla bla bla bla... :)

The term "Bosniak language" for Bosnian is used in an official capacity in Bosnia and Herzegovina itself and elsewhere, the term "Serbian language" for Croatian and Bosnian is never used in any official capacity, whatsoever. Finally, I'll repeat: if you want to edit the Croatian language article after the term is introduced here, please do so! I do not care. Just please stop making me answer this "argument" of yours for the fiftieth time. Please do not keep repeating this. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Officially where? In what language? In English? English is not official language in Bosnia. Journalist 007 (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In Serbia, Italy, and Romania, just for example (I really doubt all Serbs are nationalists :). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• This Wikipedia is in English, it's not in Serbian/Croatian. Bosnian language is proper name in English. I haven't said anything about "all" Serbs. I was talking about Serb nationalists. Journalist 007 (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure, but I believe that the Republic of Srpska, which I must emphasize is a part of the same country, also uses the term in an official capacity. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, you believe wrong. Check it again, and come back for a chat. Journalist 007 (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Now you may consider all Serbs and Serbian states "evil" and "biased" because you're a Bosniak nationalist, but unfortunately these are real countries. Which country or linguistic organization calls Croatian and Bosnian "Serbian"? But this is all not relevant to the matter at hand... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• I never considered all Serbs evil, probably you should first learn how to read, before making comments. I was talking about Croatian nationalists, in the first place. Let me repeat, about Croatian natioanlists. They are the same as the Serbian ones. Many of them are convicted of war crimes by International law. No difference. Regarding your comment, you're a Bosniak nationalist, I would just remind you that you are here, as a Croat editing Bosnian language article based on Croatian POV. As you can see I am not editing Croatian langauge article as a Bosniak nationalist, never have, at least not yet. But bunch of your fellow Croatians are here, discussing about other language instead of their own?! Journalist 007 (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Your attempts to turn this into a general discussion on Bosnia and Herzegovina and nationalism therein will not succeed. This is a simple matter, so lets keep it simple. Here's the main (and only) question: Do you, or do you not agree that English speakers alternatively refer to the language as "Bosniak"? As was demonstrated by the Google test. All else is completely irrelevant.
(To not agree is contrary to obvious evidence, i.e. contrary to reality. Of course, I realize you probably won't answer the question directly with "yes, I do" or "no, I don't" because that would mean you're either agreeing with me or contradicting reality. Neither possibility is very appealing, I suppose, so you'll likely just repeat the above nonsense without really answering the only relevant question in this discussion  :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have to turn anything into anything. Croats and Serbs who make their comments and changes here, already did. The problem is, you are not educated enough to talk about Bosnian langauge, you know nothing about Bosnian language, but you're always in the first lines when you want to deny it. Bosniak language is not common name in English. Give me one official document from ICTY/UN/OHR/similar institutions who use Bosniak langauge instead of Bosnian. Of course you can find some google hits, but not in official English language documents. Journalist 007 (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • They don't have to be "official" documents, as noone is claiming the name is "official". Wikipedia does not present only "official" information. The number of Google hits is perfectly sufficient to warrant mention in the article. Though, as you say, it is not sufficient to supplant the name "Bosnian language". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

---

There is only one thing to talk about. And that is do you, or do you not agree that English speakers alternatively refer to the language as "Bosniak"? Nothing else matters on Wiki. You'll have to find someone else willing to debate with you. I will ignore posts of no relevance to the subject of discussion. I have to say I'm starting to get annoyed by your haughty attitude and consistent avoidance of the ONLY thing that matters here: English language usage. Not "official", not overwhelming, but simply English language usage.
I'm well within my "rights" on Wiki to introduce the term and report vandalism to the admins if it (and the sources) are removed. I'm trying, however, to reach a compromise with you. The name will eventually be included in the article, simply because it is notable, sourced, and correct. Its removal is unbelievable POV I've come to expect only from inexperienced IP users that remove facts they don't like. The only thing in question is the context, i.e. the sentence in which it will read. This is why I'm asking you the question: I'm hoping we can move on to the details of the term's inclusion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

False sources

Just to mention, DIREKTOR included false sources about alternative usage of the Bosnin language name:

• [5] - this is just copied version from Wikipedia, cyclic source which means unreliable
• [6] - there is nothing here about "Bosnic/k langugage"

Regards. Historičar (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't my sources. This matter does not require sources at all, neither Britannica nor anything else. All it requires is proof of English language usage of the other term, which has already been provided. The TOTAL REMOVAL from mention of an English language alternative name is (1) completely against Wikipedia policy and may even be considered vandalism, and (2) incredible POV. I'm sorry for being so open, but you can forget about your ideas of excluding it completely from the article. Seriously, I'm not "threatening" anyone here, but I am truly so sick of this nonsensical argument that I won't hesitate to report any further attempts to completely remove valid information from mention, simply because it is disliked by Bosniak nationalists. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, this matter does require sources, especially when it's pushed by Croatian nationalistic users. I am truly so sick of seeing Croatian and Serbian nationalistic users all the time on every Bosnian-related article possible. Don't you have your own countries for God's sake?! What's wrong with you people? (1) You said something about proof of English language usage. What the hell are you talking about? You provided just one example for alleged English language usage, and that example is not even valid, because it's OHR translation of the document in Croatian language written in 1994. (2) When I was talking about Britannica, I ment about alleged controversy related to Bosnian language, which you insist to be included into Introduction. (3) Fake sources, you or other Croatian/Serbian nationalistic users included into the article, are example of sneaky vandalism! Regards. Historičar (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you ranting on about?! "Nationalists" again?! For goodness sake people, focus on what matters here!! I am an anti-nationalist, but I could be the worst rabid Ustaše-supporting, drunken hillbilly freak you can imagine, it would not matter at all as long as I made edits in accordance with Wikipedia POLICY.

(1) Please read the discussion fully before deciding to interfere. The Google test provides evidence of English language usage. And for an alternative term of a very obscure language, the English hits are more than sufficient to warrant mere mention in the article. Remember, we are talking about mere mention of the term. All alternative names are always listed in the lead of articles, per the Manual of style.

(2) The controversy is sourced, and we all know the name is contested by Croats and Serbs, its on the damn news for heaven's sake. Britannica does not even mention this language by any name.

(3) I don't need any sources, whatsoever. All I need is the Google test with all those hits, how can I be any clearer?

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(1) Try not to lie again, please! Nice try with fake sources, but no lies for God's sake?! I have Britannica 2008 and it mentions Bosnian language by the same name.
(2) You are calling Bosnian language a very obscure language and you're saying you ain't nationalist?! Who would believe you?! So what the hell are you doing with a very obscure language article? Historičar (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE READ AND RESPOND TO MY ENTIRE POST. Please do not simply glance through it and start talking irrelevant gibberish for the third time.

(1) (I hit search on Britannica and only got redirected to their Serbo-Croatian language article, maybe I made a mistake) HOWEVER: Sources do not matter, Britannica does not matter, all that is necessary for mentioning the term is evidence of English usage. English usage has been conclusively proven by the GOOGLE TEST.

(2) AS I SAID ABOVE, Croatian and Serbian are relatively obscure as well. It is irrelevant whether or not I'm a nationalist, or whether or not you're a rabid Bosniak nationalist. All that is relevant is the GOOGLE TEST.

Seriously, are you guys able to understand my words? Is there something lost in the translation? Am I too damn stupid to explain this to you? I'll try again: Sources are irrelevant, only English language usage is relevant. English language usage has been proven by the GOOGLE TEST. Here, I'll repeat: GOOGLE TEST. The GOOGLE TEST has shown evidence of the term being used in English. That means it must be included. It does not even make sense to look for or ask for sources when one is trying to prove the language is used in English. Wikipedia works by notability in such matters. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, will you please start talking about things that matter. Why? Becuase so far you have not really said ONE SINGLE THING that would warrant excluding the term from the article. Not a single thing. The only reason why I'm not restoring the term is because I'm trying to have a friendly discussion, without the edit-warring you're already warned for. However, all I get is you talking about me and about ridiculous sources, when all I talking about is the mention of the alternative term.

PLEASE READ AND RESPOND TO MY ENTIRE POST. Please do not simply glance through it and start talking irrelevant gibberish for the third time. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW D, regular English usage is less relevant in Bosniak/Bosnian naming issue as are the legal perspectives on it (the constitution which still has "Bosniac language" phrase inside), its translations to Serbian/Croatian (and some other languages) and the general buzz surrounding the issue. So doing google-testing for "Bosniak/c language" and using it as an argument of relevance to mention the naming issue altogether is kind of missing the point. Plenty of Bosniak/Croat/Serb academics as well as official language institutions have commented on it, as well as the politicians, and that is what should be taken as the primary argument on the relevance of mentioning IMHO. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Say rather that even if we ignore English usage of the alternative name, "non-false" sources are abundant. I'm really having bad luck with getting into discussions lately... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Historičar, this is hardly "Croatian/Serb nationalist issue" as you try to portray it, more like Bosniak nationalist issue who deliberately try to belittle and/or ignore the issue altogether. Do you think that the English version of the constitution [7] at the OHR website is a "fake source"? (note that it is not the "translation to English from Croatian" as you claim above, it was the original whence translations to Croatian and Bosnian were committed) The translation of Bosniak to bosanski was unilateral change done by Bosniaks not agreed to by Serb and Croat representatives of B&H (it's "our country too", mind you). Here's an analysis by Croatian representative R. Dodig, just for you: [8] (PDF, 1MB), quoting relevant parts:

Usvajanjem Washingtonskoga sporazuma 30. ožujka 1994. u Ustavu Federacije BiH pojavilo se i pitanje službene uporabe jezika u Federaciji BiH. U rukama hrvatskih i bošnjačkih zastupnika našao se radni materijal, bolje reći neslužbeni prijevod s engleskoga jezika, gdje se u članku 6. govorilo u službenim jezicima. Međutim, u prijevodu hrvatskih zastupnika stajalo je: “Službeni su jezici Federacije bošnjački jezik i hrvatski jezik.Službeno je pismo latinica”. U materijalima bošnjačkih zastupnika pisalo je da su službeni jezici u Federaciji BiH bosanski i hrvatski jezik. Nakon otvaranje rasprave o Ustavu FBiH zastupnik R. Dodig pitao je za govornicom, koji je naziv ispravan bošnjački ili bosanski jezik, navodeći da u engleskom izvorniku, koji je jedini bio mjerodavan, biše “bosniac language”. Predsjedavajući Ustavotvorne skupštine FBiH M. Ljubić odgovorio je da će o tome kasnije raspraviti Komisija za usuglašavanje tekstova na dvama jezicima. Institucija NIO Službeni list RBiH tiskala je Ustav Federacije BiH u “Službenim novinama Federacije BiH”, br. 1. od 21. srpnja 1994. U prvim primjercima Službenih novina na hrvatskom jeziku čl. 6., str. 11., pisalo je da su službeni jezici u Federaciji BiH bošnjački i hrvatski jezik. U Službenim novinama FBiH na bošnjačkom jeziku pisalo je u istome članku da su službeni jezici u FBiH bosanski i hrvatski jezik. Ubrzo nakon toga u NIO Službeni list stigao je dopis tajnika Komisije za ustavna pitanja Ustavotvorne skupštine FBiH, inače Bošnjaka, u kojemu obavještava upravu Službenoga lista da se u tekstu na hrvatskom jeziku “potkrala pogreška”, te da se naziv bošnjački jezik treba ispraviti u bosanski jezik. NIO Službeni list tiskala je drugu verziju Službenih novina FBiH, u kojima je stajao naziv bosanski jezik. Ta prepravljena verzija objavljena je kasnije u posebnoj brošuri USTAV FBIH, NIO Službeni list, Sarajevo, 1994., u kojoj se nalaze tekstovi Ustava FBiH na hrvatskom, bošnjačkom/bosanskom i engleskom jeziku. Zanimljivo je da u toj brošuri čl. 6., str. 68., na engleskom jeziku govori da su u službenoj uporabi u FBiH “Bosniac language and the Croatian language”, dakle bošnjački i hrvatski jezik....Početkom 1995. izabrana je Komisija za utvrđivanje istovjetnosti tekstova na bosanskom i hrvatskom jeziku Ustavotvorne skupštine FBiH, koja se za mandata Skupštine do izbora 1996. nije nikada konstituirala niti sastala, što znači da nije nikada utvrdila autentičnost članka 6. ustava FBiH. Ukratko, ulazak naziva bosanski jezik kao ustavna rješenja u službene federalne propise na hrvatskom jeziku grubo je kršenje pravnih odredaba, američki rečeno, kaubojski čin....Očito je da pri izboru naziva bosanski za jezik Bošnjaka nisu uzimani u obzir lingvistički (tvorbeno-semantički i terminološki), nego kulturnoistorijski i politički razlozi.

Historičar what you and Journalist 007 (or you're the same person?) trying to do is to ride on the waves of the general public image of the victimization of Bosniaks in the 1990s wars, and push it along to legitimize purely illegal acts supportive of another kind of nationalism, further breeding antagonism and hatred among our brotherly nations. There is no point in trying to fake history, Dodig's report is extremely detailed and corroborated with sources, himself being first-hand witness and a participant in the events. Bosnian/Bosniak naming controversy is very important issue that must be mentioned in the article, the only thing left to discuss is whether it be in the lead or not. So please stop removing entire paragraphs which cite sources such as OHR website as if they don't matter at all, because we all very well now they do. And please be kind in general :P --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Related to this edit by user Historičar:

I am truly so sick of seeing Croatian and Serbian nationalistic users all the time on every Bosnian-related article possible. Don't you have your own countries for God's sake?! What's wrong with you people?

User:Historičar should calm down. Calling other people “nationalists” and behave on the same way. Just for the record. This is not matter whose country is (andfor the record it does belong to Croats and Serbs as well as to Bosniaks a.k.a . Bosnian Muslims. –that is what constituition says!). Everybody is allowed to edit any kind of articles. So please: no hysteria!

Añtó| Àntó (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A checkuser would be very wise. The accounts User:Historičar and User:Journalist 007 are very similar, and the English is also nearly identical. Plus, the word "historičar" means "historian", which is similar to "journalist" (incorporating "007" because this time its in English). Also, the two accounts were created only a few months apart. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(1) DIREKTOR and Ivan, if you have any doubt about me using other account, be my guest, fill the check request. I suggest now, that all of us who participate in this edit war, should be checked for other accounts - sockpuppets, in order to resolve any doubt before continuation of this discussion, cause I think argumentum ad hominem is just an excuse for nationalists to maintain their arguments in article:

• User:Mir Harven
• User:Ivan Štambuk
• User:Historičar
• User:Journalist 007
• User:Aradic-es
• User:DIREKTOR

Those are the names I took from the history who were the most active in this article, so I ask any admin with checkuser privilege to check all of the users on the list, and we shall see who is who.

(2) Regarding alternative usage, you haven't provided any source at all to support that. OK, let's check your google hists:
a) Here is the result for Bosnian language: [9] 68,400
b) Here is the result for Bosnic language: [10] 492

What I want to say? Are you aware of proportion between those results?! It's 1:140, which means Bosniak usage is on the level of syntax error.

--Regards. Historičar (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(Your google test is faulty. Use "-wikipedia" next time.)

I know the Google test results, they've already been mentioned above. "What you want to say?" Are we trying to say "Bosniak language" is more common that "Bosnian"? Are we trying to rename the article? No! Then why are you acting like that's the issue? 500 hits is more than enough for an (1) alternative name of an (2) obscure subject. You don't get to say how many hits are "insignificant", and you'd probably say the same if it was 10,000. All that matters is that it is proof that the term is at all used in English. Is it used a lot less than "Bosnian"? Of course (that's why the article has this title)! But is it "not used in English"? No, it most certainly is used in English.

What have we concluded? 1. That the term is not predominant, hence it is an "alternative term". 2. That the term is used in English. 3. That alternative terms used in English should be included in the lead (per guidelines). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all Historičar, there is no reason to suspect that either of us "nationalist" (which is so absurd allegation it makes me puke: of those that you lited, at least DIREKTOR and me have proven to be in varius instances to be non-nationalist, fighting with real PoV nationalists who try to push one particular version of history). Now, what you appear to be doing is accusing us of being "sockpuppeting nationalist" in order to cover your own sockpuppet "Journalist 007" which is so plainly obvious that it scared a hell out of you (given that you know what is the penalty for such disruptive sockpuppeting :) If you want do file a checkuser request for any of us, feel free to do so the respective page. We cannot simply halt the discussion here just because you "suspect something" :) Furthermore, even if somebody is using a sockpuppet (which I highly doubt), that doesn't invalidate the fact that you are the one evading discussion, ignoring everything what is written above (Dodig's report is so thorough that it leaves absolutely no room for misinterpetation, and I'm still waiting for you to respond to it), simply reverting edits with silly accusations that they come from "Serb and Croat nationalist", and "fake sources".

Now, you try to belittle this whole issue saying that the Bosnian/Bosniak language issue is on the level of "syntax error" (I guess you were thinking "spelling error" :), which all of us very well now has nothing to do with the issue. Google hits prove exactly nothing, as long as the official version of B&H constitution still has Bosniac language phrase inside. That is what the problem is all about, about the constitutional phrasing, it's subsequent "translation" as bosanski jezik, and re-translation to English as Bosnian language.

I mean, Historičar, this is not some uber-complex issue that cannot be settled by some 3rd-party mediator. If you continue to simply edit-war, ignoring the discussion altogether and dismissing opponents' arguments on the grounds of being laid out by "Croat and Serb nationalists", I'm afraid we'll have to call for some assistance with sysop buttons and something tells me you're not going to be comfortable about it :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's first resolve the question of sockpuppets. I am now 100% sure that User:Mir Harven and User:Ivan Štambuk are the same user, which scared a hell out of you, because Mir Harven i.e. You Mr. Ivan Štambuk had so many fascistic statements that it would be so bad for you if someone connects all that bull shit with you. Regarding me being scared, I am the only one didn't remove a tag from my user page, as I said be my guest fill the request and prove your alligations. But don't be so scared Mir Harven when you remove the tags I put. You are talking about Dodig? Well Mir Harven you are the one who included that bull shit into the article: [11]. It's now obvious, the same dirty language and your arrogance. Historičar (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

xD I can't believe this... You have no idea who you're accusing of sockpuppetry... dirty language? LOL! You're obviously a newbie on Wikipedia, and believe me when I say that you're emabarrsing yourself, m8 :) As for me, you should be aware that first you're supposed to invent some User that's a sockpuppet of mine, before you accuse me of sockpuppeteering or file a checkuser. Be my guest. Who's my sockpuppet? The checkuser can only see if two users are the same guy, so you need the second user to file it. :)

It is now becoming quite obvious that no amout of arguments and reasoning will prevail against your POV. Admin intervention may be the only course available. You're the "nationalist", apparently, and are now stalling the discussion with utter nonsense. How about answering the arguments? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Historičar I'm not Mir Harven (tho I do know him, believe it or not, but he doesn't know me - he's a physicist working as a TA at my faculty). Dodig was the Croat representitave in B&H parliament when this issue came up, the first to openly question the hidden agenda of the translation of Bosniac to bosanski and an active commentator in the media. (Incidentaly, I also know mr. Dodig as he was my Latin teacher in the gymnasium, some others may remember him as the absolute winner of the very popular quiz in SFRJ times called Kviskoteka ^_^). Anyhow, if you think that a distinguished intellectual like mr. Dodig is "bullshitting", then I'm afraid you have to try to find some sources that disapprove abovequoted evidence, otherwise it'll be simply a matter of your personal opinion, and WP articles are based on sourced, quality content, not on editors' opinions on the issues. Moreover, eEven if Dodig's opinion were some "Croat nationalist PoV" as you imagine, we must include it per WP:NPOV policy in order to maintain the neutrality of the article. Please try to understand that. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok... looks like User:Journalist 007 and User:Historičar are one and the same person. They've both been indef blocked. The sock report on User:Ivan Štambuk has been dismissed. As per Historičar's demands, the "question of sockpuppets" has been resolved. :)

Does anyone else have any objections to a simple mentioning of the alt. name? remember, we're talking about simply mentioning it. Once. Everywhere else the term "Bosnian language" will/should be used. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No objections to the mentioning of the alt name but to the way it is mentioned. 1) As mentioned above Bosnian and Bosniak are not on the same level of usage, therefore Bosniak should not be entitled to be bolded but perhaps italicized. 2) "The language itself uses the Latin alphabet (Gaj's Latin Alphabet, originally devised for Croatian), although the Cyrillic alphabet (Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, originally devised for Serbian) is also accepted, chiefly to accommodate for its official usage in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the past, especially in the former SFR Yugoslavia, but is seldom used in practice." Is a bit a prick way of saying what the language is based on. It does not in the Serbian language page mention that "Gaj's Latin Alphabet, originally devised for Croatian". It also does not mention Bosnian Cyrillic. PRODUCER (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the first point, we should unbold and italicize the phrase once the protection expires. The Bosnian/Bosniak naming issue is less of an English-language usage problem, and more of a foreign-language issue with certain political connotations.

As for the second point. The script (not the language) is based (in fact, it's identical) on Gaj's alphabet (Gaj called it pravopis but's really an alphabet) that has been used for Croatian for more than a century. I think it makes much more sense to state that fact and link it to the article [[Gaj's Latin Alphabet]], instead of to the article [[Latin alphabet]] like it used to be linked before. It's not that the Latin script used for modern standard Bosnian has been independently devised out of nowhere - it's usage is basically a continuation of the writing tradition practiced for western varieties of Serbo-Croatian since the second half of the 19th century. Furthermore, the article on Gaj's alphabet already mentions Bosnian language, and provides detailed historical and linguistic perspective on its usage. The same can be said for Vuk's Cyrillic alphabet (which is not really used anywhere for Bosnian AFAIK, but since it's allowed we must mention it), and its respective article, as opposed to simply linking to more general article on the Cyrillic alphabet.

I can imagine that mentioning Gaj's and Vuk's basis for the two alphabets used to write modern standard Bosnian can be a bit "pricky" from a perspective of a proud Bosniak, but that is unfortunately the state of historical affaris that simply cannot be ignored..

As for the alternatives scripts that were used on the territory of B&H like bosančica and arebica - they're obsolete de facto for centuries and shouldn't really be mentioned in the lead, but only in the history section. Like e.g. [[Croatian language]] article mentions Glagolitic only in its history section (and glagoljica is much more essential part of Croatian national-linguistic psyche than bosančica is part of Bosniak!) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what difference bold script makes, and I don't see any NPOV reason why an alternative name of the article's subject (that redirects here) should not be written in the standard way recommended by the MoS. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

PRODUCER, WP:MOS is clear enough on this. There are no "levels of usage". See MOS:BOLDTITLE:

• "If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance. But do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English, or variations included only to show etymology."

(Before you say anything: "Bosniak language" is English, not a foreign language name. It is also by no means a "variation included only to show etymology".) You have to believe me when I say that neither Mr. Štambuk nor I are here to push some kind of "nationalist POV" against Bosniaks. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I only had that impression of Aradic-es, because of his edits like this [12]. My opinion still stands, as MoS is not specific when it comes to controversial names and because Bosniak is nowhere near as common as Bosnian. PRODUCER (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I just mentioned the fact that Bosniaks do sometimes identify themselves as "Turks"... That is not my opinion -just a fact-recorded one!! --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but I'm not User:Aradic-es. I came here and noticed that the Controversy section made no sense, so I just added a lead. A lead that was as neutral as possible. The second I got reverted I knew what was going on: classic nationalist removal of information that offends them personally. When I get reverted for no good reason like that I pursue the matter to its end. Fortunately, nationalists usually aren't that smart, so they do stupid things like create unnecessary accounts to agree with themselves. Believe me, this is like the tenth nationalist guy that got banned like this. Also, you can count on him being back as soon as he can.

• Re: "MoS is not specific when it comes to controversial names"
  • What's your point? The name itself may be controversial, but is inclusion in the article is certainly not. In fact, to a Wikipedian that's all the more reason to mention it. The more information an article has on its subject, the better. This is not an "official record of reality" its inclusion here does not make it "official". It just means that its an interesting and valid piece of information.
• Re: "Bosniak is nowhere near as common as Bosnian"
  • Of course not, but it is an alternative name, and it is very relevant. That is simply no reason to change anything. Noone is challenging the name of this article...

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't I say Historičar would be back? :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Protected

I've locked the article for one week per the ongoing content dispute and resultant edit-war. All editors are reminded of the Arbitration Committee's decision concerning Balkans-related articles, and encouraged to engage in constructive efforts to come to a consensus on this talk page. Our dispute resolution suggestions may be helpful. EyeSerene^talk 17:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, now we'll get no response from Historičar... too boring I imagine. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason for productive editors to suffer, so because the original sources of the disruption have now been indefblocked, I've downgraded the protection to semi for the remainder of its duration. EyeSerene^talk 15:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

...and now it's back in place. Looks like I was too hasty (sprot only though this time). EyeSerene^talk 20:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My recent edits

My recent edits were primarily directed at the "Controversy" section, where I noticed that the original wording was altered for the sake of POV. The idea is apparently to make the whole dispute sound nonsensical, and to label all opponents as "Croatian and Serbian nationalists" (quote). This won't fly. Furthermore, the reference to the Medieval tradition of the name, though valid, is a play on words. The mention of 'a "Bosnian language" in the Middle Ages has little relevance to the modern issue at hand. The sentence's placement was clear POV, and I've moved it alongside the rest of the counter-arguments. In its earlier placement, its suggested that the whole controversy is somehow "in spite of historical evidence to the contrary". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was uncomfortable with that too. To suggest that the modern Bosnian language is a continuation of the usage of the same term in the Middle Ages (where it was in fact mostly used by Bosnian Croat Franciscan writers - literate Slav Muslim elite chiefly wrote in Persian, Turkish, Arabic etc.) is one big misleading historical misconception. "Bosnia" in the Middle ages was not the same as Bosnia today (where moreover the adjective Bosnian is today used in a sense "of or pertaining to the federal state of Bosnia and Herzegovina"). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I further separated the pros and cons, and fixed some of the wording. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

PRODUCER, my edits simply grouped all arguments together, the Bosniak view is listed finally because it is only logical to place the response after the controversy is explained. Its childish to assume that grouping the messed-up sentences is somehow promoting a POV. The section is on the controversy, first we have an intro, along with the situation in Serbia, Republic of Srpska, and Croatia, and then the Bosniak response to their claims. Also, I must insist on removing the word "sometimes" from "the language is sometimes alternatively reffered to...", because it is vague and unencyclopedic ("sometimes"? when? where?). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How are they intertwined? The section has four paragraphs:

• 1) intro
• 2) details of the controversy in Croatia
• 2) details of the controversy in the Republic of Srpska and Serbia
• 4) Bosniak responses to the claims of both of the ethnic communities

It makes no sense to squeeze the fourth paragraph between the first two, we'd have an incompletely defined subject, and an elaboration of the response prior to the reader knowing what exactly the guys are responding to. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(P.S. My bad in the Bosnian War article lede, I didn't notice that. I assure you once more, I am here on good faith trying to help the article out on this tough issue.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's how I see it

• Controversy
• Croat linguist view
• Recognition in RS, Serbia and Montenegro
• Bosniak linguist view and recognition PRODUCER (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have every right to add the map to this article, as it is undeniably related to the subject matter. You have no basis in Wikipedia policy, whatsoever, to remove it. I won't edit-war over this, I'll simply alert the admins. It is absolutely outrageous that even the most well-meaning edits meet such obnoxious POV at every turn around here. Am I a Croatian nationalist? Only a person completely unfamiliar with my work on Wiki can accuse me of "Croatian nationalist POV". Again, I am here to present this issue in the most neutral manner imaginable, and I'm not stopping until that goal its achieved.
Kruško Mortale, you have reverted to a version that is (1) a complete disorganized mess, (2) labels all those who oppose your POV as "nationalists", (3) abounds with bad grammar, and (4) is rife with makeshift "insertions" into previous text, added for the sake of POV. Let me assure you: this will not fly. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

1) The map should be based on census. That map is not based on census, due to the fact the last census was in 1991. Let me say, you don't have every right, to add the map to this article, because everyone can have his own map, created in Photoshop. It's worthless, because it's speculation as there is no precise data.

2) You made a few interesting changes, which are (to me) an obvious sign of your neutrality: You changed: Some Croatian linguists (Radoslav Katičić, Dalibor Brozović and Tomislav Ladan) into A number of Croatian linguists (Radoslav Katičić, Dalibor Brozović and Tomislav Ladan).

In the same time you did this edit: Bosniak linguists and intellectuals into Some Bosniak linguists and intellectuals.

There are other changes as well, but first can you clarify this one. Kruško Mortale (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

1) Its a professional estimate. I did not make it or introduce it in commons and Wikipedia, I just copy/pasted it from the Bosnia and Herzegovina article for the purpose of clarifying the frequently mentioned ethnic divide of Bosnia which is absolutely crucial for understanding the "Controversy" section of this article. I am aware there was no census, this image is based on a professional estimate, and states that quite clearly. It makes no pretense to be based on any census (even though you make it sound like it does). If you think its "POV" or "propaganda", I suggest you take your concerns to the proper place and return here when you've had the image deleted or something. As things stand, if its good enough for the main Bosnia and Herzegovina article, its good enough for this one.

2) a. Oh yes, changing "some" into "a number" is a clear sign of the rabid nationalist sentiments that are bursting under my disguise of a neutral Wikipedian, a user that's increasingly annoyed over having to explain every meaningless wording alteration he makes. The reason I changed that is because it sounded better to start the paragraph with something different than "some linguists". If anything, it now actually sounds like less Croatian linguists support the term "Bosniak lnaguage". Feel free to defend the honor of the Bosniak nation once again by changing it back into "some"...

b. I added "some" there because the sources supporting that sentence do not affirm that all Bosniak linguists and intellectuals support the name "Bosnian". In fact, last time I checked, some of them consider all of this the Serbo-Croatian language. Either way, get a source before removing the "some" here.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, but first get a source before inserting "some", or changing "some" into "a number". Kruško Mortale (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Nice try"?? You are not making any sense whatsoever. What ridiculous game is this? The sentence reads:

"Bosniak linguists and intellectuals (for instance Muhamed Filipović) consider interpretation of some Croatian and Serbian linguists as nationalistic actions against Bosniaks and their identity in the light of Karađorđevo agreement and genocide committed on Bosniaks during Bosnian war."

That sentence claims in essence that the above is the opinion of ALL Bosniak linguists and intellectuals. The source we have in support of that sentence only confirms that Muhamed Filipović is of that opinion. Until you can prove the ALL Bosniak linguists and intellectuals are of that opinion, I will not allow the text to say anything of the kind. Please oh please, stop with the nonsense.

As for changing "some" into "a number", it is there for aesthetic reasons only. If you actually had a look at the sentence, you'd notice that changing "some" into "a number of" actually means less Croatian linguists support the alternative name "Bosniak language". "Some" is either completely equal to, or actually means more than "a number of".

Until you get the image deleted or something you have no basis in Wikipedia policy to remove it, since it is related to the subject. If it is good enough for the main Bosnia and Herzegovina article, its good enough for this wreck. Now please stop removing it, as such actions may be defined as POV-motivated vandalism (and will of course be reported as such).

For the record, do you have any idea how ridiculous this discussion is? Not only are you discussing a completely and utterly meaningless change in wording, you're imagining that this meaningless and ambiguous change in wording somehow promotes a POV. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Your statement is totally ridiculous! (Until you can prove the ALL Bosniak linguists...) Well, Genius, there is something called general opinion. According to your logic, not ALL Croats speak Croatian, but SOME Croats speak Croatia, so Croatian is not the language of Croats, but of SOME of them?! Give me a break and get life. Kruško Mortale (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read the sentence we're talking about? Its not about the name of the language, its about ONE guy attacking all opposing linguists and calling them nationalists and genocide-supporters (hey, just like you do :). Whoever wrote that sentence read the statement by Filipović and proceeded to assert that Bosniak linguists and intellectuals all share his opinions on the issue. By all rights and sources, the sentence should read

"According to Bosniak linguist Muhamed Filipović, the actions of some Croatian and Serbian linguists are nationalistic attacks against Bosniaks and their identity in the light of Karađorđevo agreement and genocide committed on Bosniaks during Bosnian war."

I'm actually being generous here by simply adding "some linguists and intellectuals". This whole sentence should be either radically reworded or completely wiped from the article as it is pure nonsense. The guy is actually trying to use accusations of genocide-supporting as an argument in a linguistic debate. Not only is it a cheap move that does not constitute an argument, its repulsive and obscene in light of the horrible tragedies Bosniaks have suffered in the past war.

Ok, here's the deal with the image: I don't know who made it, I don't know what estimate its based on, I don't know who added it, and I don't care. I just copy/pasted it from the main Bosnia and Herzegovina article. Go away, get the image deleted as evil propaganda or something, and when you can prove to me that its forged and is not really based on any professional 2006 estimate, I'll remove it myself. Until then, your actions in removing it will be responded to appropriately: with a vandalism report. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I never insulted anyone here, so please behave yourself!
Second, the same works for Croat linguists: It should be: According to Radoslav Katičić, Dalibor Brozović and Tomislav Ladan... Kruško Mortale (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I never insulter anyone either, so what are you talking about!?

Second, you're absolutely right. I've changed that Croat sentence to say that "specifically Radoslav Katičić, Dalibor Brozović and Tomislav Ladan..." are the ones supporting the view that "Bosniak" is the proper name (per sources). I've also changed the disgusting travesty that is that Filipović sentence to read that this is his opinion only (per sources). I understand that there is such a thing as a general opinion, so if you believe that Filipović's statement is shared and constitutes a general opinion among Bosniak linguists and intellectuals, feel free to find a source and confirm that. Until then, we stick to the sources and not personal approximations on your part as to what does and what doesn't constitute a general opinion in Bosnia and Herzegovina. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, could you please tell me why are you reverting every single change from the article, if you only have a problem with two words and one thumbnail? If you have problems with every single good faith improvement I introduced, why are you not discussing them all?

I get this lackluster feeling from your edits. You seem to be against just about everything, but you don't really want to discuss it or edit the article in detail. You just click the Undo button and write up one sentence in the talkpage. I'm not about to go away, you know. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You said, we stick to the sources. Before that when I asked you to provide the source to support the map, you said, I don't care who made the map?! Just Brilliant! Make up your mind finally! Kruško Mortale (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Tell me why are you reverting every single change from the article, if you only have a problem with two words and one thumbnail?

Sooo... you're reverting me again because you're personally offended by my "dishonesty"? What? Please read WP:V, if its not sourced, I have every right to remove it. As for the image... it looks professional, but I agree it may not be. So fine, I'll remove it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Before making a comment, first think about it. As you can see I didn't revert you, I made a change. Kruško Mortale (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes all right, I added CIA estimate of BiH ethnic composition instead of the unsourced map. You should know that this map is everywhere. Look around... it should either be removed everywhere, or allowed everywhere. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

All self-created maps should be removed. Just those maps based on real data should stay. Second, you said that you made meaningless change in wording. I believed you, but when I saw what you tried to do in Bosnian War, with FB&H thing, I found you lied here as well. You totally removed a part of this sentence, saying your changes are meaningless:

• However, the constitution of Republika Srpska refers to it as the "Language spoken by Bosniaks" (Језик којим говоре Бошњаци, Jezik kojim govore Bošnjaci) due to the fact that the Serbs had to officially recognize it, but still avoid recognition of its name.

Can you explain this change? You deleted half of the sentence ?! Kruško Mortale (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did. That's an unsourced assumption and has no place in an encyclopedia. I don't care about your personal ideas as to why RS used that term. FACTS only, no personal conclusions that are to be imposed on the reader.

I used FBiH because I did not know. I asked you about that on your own talkpage, a post which you ignored, and I corrected the error myself. If I've offended your delicate nationalist sense of pride, I apologize. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. Half of Wikipedia is unsourced. If you want a source, you have a specific tag to ask for it. Not to delete things you dislike. It seems, you dislike it a lot. Kruško Mortale (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Kruško, your edits are very PoV-ish and dubious. Why do you restore the sentence that tries to connect medieval usages of the phrase Bosnian language with modern 1990s-created standard? It would be as if I was mentioning ilirski jezik and dalmatinski jezik, both of which have abundant citations in the 15th-19th century, on the articles on Illyrian and Dalmatian language. These two have nothing in common and we all know that very well. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ivan, your input would've been even more appreciated earlier... xP --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What should we know about language ?!

So, I am just curious how you "brother" Ivan ŠTAMBUK, DIREKTOR, and many others editors writing\editing about Bosnian language (Povelja - http://personal.inet.fi/cool/blt/index.htm ; http://personal.inet.fi/cool/blt/P%20%20O%20%20V%20%20E%20%20L%20%20J%20%20A.pdf) with such authority and energy, actualy, don't even speak the language ? What is that mean, how should we understand your motives, intersts, and even more so, your seriousness, frankness and integrity ?--Santasa99 (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"We"? Who is "we"? You? :) Feel free to judge my "motives, intersts, and even more so, your seriousness, frankness and integrity" however you like (refraining from insults and the like). Govorim svoj jezik jako dobro, hvala lijepa. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We, myself, and maybe you. I thought, naturally, that any debate on any language should involved an academicians, experts that are native speakers of the language or at least near native. As long as you are native speaker of the Bosnian language, you should be able to write about it on a scale of your expertise, even as layman - again, as long as you are familiar with its history, standards, etc. So, are you native speaker of the Bosnian language?

Hm, I'm a Croat. I speak the neo-shtokavian dialect upon which both Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian are based. I can understand Bosnian completely 100% - as its essentially the same language as the other two. So you could say I am indeed a native speaker of Bosnian. What I don't understand is why am I justifying my involvement here? This is a "free encyclopedia", so if a Chinese layman wanted to edit - he's perfectly welcome. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I said exactly that. I am just clearing up your "motives, intersts, and even more so, your seriousness, frankness and integrity", although I couldn't find any evidence that you speak or understand Bosnian language - let alone recognizing it as such.--Santasa99 (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

U redu sada ću ti odgovoriti ovako da riješimo tu dilemu. Ako misliš da neznam Bosanski, grdno se varaš. Možda mi ti možeš prevoditi ako bude trebalo? (Maybe you can "translate" from Croatian to Bosnian if the need arises? xD A translator from British to American English would probably find more work...) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

But, maybe it isn't matter of understanding, it is very clear a matter of recognition. If you really prefer that Croatian and Bosnian are the same, well, tell me what language of those two is more genuine, which is older, which one is derived from the other - is that your point of being editor and contributor on Bosnian and not just (or maybe at all) on Croatian language article ? I would expect Croat eagerly editing Croatian language article, you know, nothing personal, and not Bosnian (even so, with lots of disputes, conflicts and bitter corespondenst with Bosniaks editors).--Santasa99 (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok this is getting silly, why am I justifying myself to you? I am not a Croatian nationalist, I edit here because I edit on all ex-Yugoslavia articles. To answer your question ("what language of those two is more genuine, which is older, which one is derived from the other?") with another question: if the two languages are the same thing, how can one be older/more genuine than the other? How can this language be "more genuine" than itself?? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't have to justifying your self to me, have you ? I really don't know because, I don't consider two are the same - at all. Actualy you and I.Štambuk are on that point of view, right ? Why don't you invite, sooner rather then later, Mr.Ivan ŠTAMBUK to say one or two on this strange and remarkable development, maybe he can answer that questions to you. He also speaks only Croatian (of all South Slavic L.), yet he writing about Bosnian as an expert and native speaker as well. That is very, very strange in anyones book. It is, almost, like you both actually, considering Bosnian nothing more and nothing less then Croatian language renamed by those "boring" Bosniaks to fit their "delicate sense of nationalistic pride". And this is not silly, nor funny, a bit--Santasa99 (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The three are obviously the "same thing" due to the fact that they're all based on the exact same dialect (Neo-Shtokavian), this is why they were even politically considered the same language for the past 150 years. I edit here because all ex-Yugoslav articles are within my sphere of interest on Wiki. I most certainly DO NOT consider Bosnian to be "Croatian in disguise" or whatever you're accusing me of. And since I'm not about to stand here and be accused of greater-Croatian nationalism on the basis of the fact that I am Croatian, that will be it from me. Very silly approach you've got there, imho... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For purpose of clearing this paranoic, nacionalistic retoric-fog up: I am of Croatian etnicity too !--Santasa99 (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Yeah, and "silly approach" you say; really, just "silly" ?--Santasa99 (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Even more interesting, I lived first 7yrs. in Split. Isn't that somthing ? Two Croats arguing about Bosnian language with a fundamentally different, opposite views. One of us must be deluded, maybe even dishonest. --Santasa99 (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I really hoped I will get this guy, Štambuk, here to exchange few words with him. Pity, he didn't show up.--Santasa99 (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Prestani trolat, dosadan si i trkeljaš gluposti. Ako nemaš ništa reći vezano za članak bolje šuti. Ovo što ti radiš su ad-hominem napadi zbog kojih se blokira. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

LoL... zašto ja nisam ovo reka odma...? Ne da mi se učit pa chatam na Wiki sa nekim čudnim likovima... proklete bakterije!! :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Really, why don't you block my acount on these stands and insults ! Is that all you can say on Bosnian ?--Santasa99 (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it is appropriate to use other then english on en.wikipedia, right?--Santasa99 (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Although, I had few quite a legitimate questions for you, there is no need of calling me trol, boring and stupid, also there is no need to making these threats of blocking my acount for nothing - I assume its a bad faith. You don't need to make any response at all.--Santasa99 (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA: comment on content, not the contributor. I think its time to stop with the silly questions. Your interest in us has been noted and your inquiries rejected. User:Ivan Štambuk called you boring and a troll, and called your questions (not you!) "stupid", which I have to agree is a very accurate description. You on the other hand questioned my integrity and implied I am "deluded maybe even dishonest". Cease such offensive trolling or you will indeed be reported. You do not have the right to question other people's motives and integrity with no basis whatoever other than (absurdly) that we are Croats and this is an article on the Bosnian language. Please consider this a warning. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Možeš pričati kojimgod jezikom hoćeš i niko ti ništa ne može (eventualno ćeš dobit par dosadnih poruka na strani za razgovor "ovo je inglišpedija, yadayada..) _{A može se i prevesti naknadno ako bude potrebe za tim}. Kao što sam ti rekao gore, ako nemaš što diskutirati vezano za sadržaj članka, bolje nemoj ništa pisati, a pogotovo ne prozivati druge suradnike, jer to spada pod trolanje i ad-hominem napade. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I expecting that you know what argumentum ad hominem means so that you do not take it so lightly - (I am Croat, any other affiliations were never mentioned) - so keep it calm, will-ya. Its true, your expertise (both of you) is something that I really questioned , but in very polite maner . Further so, you contributing\editing article of Bosnian language, while you don't provide any evidence that you speak the language - and please spare me and don't say I speak Croatian and its a same language, or, therefore I know Bosnian and everything about it and with such authority, yet you obviously never intended to place "Babel" on your page stating you are BL speaker (why - do shall we also assume, draw another conclusion from that fact and say, "well he despise\do not recognise the Bosnian language".

DIR and I in person are fairly irrelevant, as well as our knowledge, credentials, competence in "Bosnian" or lack thereof. Do you have any issues with the article content at all? --Ivan Štambuk (talk)

No , I don't - I was just appealing to your human side, intelligence as well as your consciences. Don't feel bothered, it is irrelevant, obviously.