Talk:Bosniaks: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:28, 1 February 2010 editPolargeo (talk \| contribs)9,903 editsm →Question?: ethnicity← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 18:20, 13 June 2024 edit undoFlourdiliz (talk \| contribs)2 edits →Error in article about Bosnian national affirmation process in SFRJ
(829 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{talkheader}}		{{talkheader}}
	{{~~notforum~~}}		{{not a forum}}
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|b}}
	{{Ethnic groups\|class=B}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Bosnia~~ ~~and Herzegovina~~\|class=B\|~~importance~~=~~high}}~~		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|1=
			{{WikiProject Ethnic groups \|importance=High }}

			{{WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Yugoslavia\|importance=High}}
			}}
			{{Merged-from\|Bosniaks/infobox}}
	<!-- Template:Archive box begins -->		<!-- Template:Archive box begins -->
			{{Archive box \|search=yes \|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III \|age=3 \|units=months \|index=/Archive index}}
	{\| class="infobox plainlinks" style="width: {{{box-width\|238px}}}"
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|<div style="padding-top: 4px; text-align: center">{{{image\|]}}}'''<br/>]'''
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	</div>
			\|maxarchivesize = 200K
	----
			\|counter = 6
	{{#if:{{{auto\|}}}\|{{#ifeq:{{{auto}}}\|long\|{{Archive list long}}\|<div style="text-align: center">{{archive list}}</div>}}
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
	{{#if:]: - June 5, 2006\|<br/>}}}}
			\|algo = old(90d)
	]: - June 2006<br>
			\|archive = Talk:Bosniaks/Archive %(counter)d
	] - October 2007 (primarily)<br>
			}}
	] - September 2009<br>
	~~\|}<!--~~ ~~Template:~~Archive ~~box ends~~ ~~-->~~		{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes

			}}

	== "Turks" ==

	=== paragraphs #1 and #2 ===

	{{cquote\|In older literature (for example, in ]'s opus '']'') the Bosniaks have been called ''Turks'', in view of their high standing vis-a-vis the Serbs and Croats of Bosnia during Ottoman rule, and this name had no particular negative connotation. Today, a hundred years after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, to call Bosniaks by this name is generally considered as something vulgar .Still, however, in certain occasions Bosniak do identify themselves as “Turks”.During the football match Croatia-Turkey at EURO 2008 IN Many cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosniaks were using Turkish flag and yelling “Ovo je Turska!” (“This is Turkey! “).<ref>http://www.bhdani.com/default.asp?kat=txt&broj_id=576&tekst_rb=11 </ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4FjGGIgc3E </ref><ref>http://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/emir-hadzihafizbegovic-odgovorno-tvrdim-da-je-vecina-bosnjaka-navijala-za-hrvatsku-protiv-turske/392403.aspx </ref> During his meeting with Turkish prime minister Mustafa Cerić ,the religious leader of Bsnian muslims, has made a statement : “Say to the Turkish people :Turkey is our Mother. That how it was always, and it will remain like that. <ref>http://www.livno-online.com/bih/9641-je-li-turska-mati-bosnjacima </ref><ref>http://www.sarajevo-x.com/clanak/081115042 </ref> <ref> http://nwbih.com/news.cgi?ref1=1477</ref><ref>http://stara.oslobodjenje.ba/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49731&Itemid=46</ref>}}

	{{cquote\|Many cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina with Bosniak ethnic majority are named after ottoman leaders.I.e. After ] was named street in downtown of ].("ulica Mehmed-paše Sokolovića")<ref>http://www.nekretnine365.com/nekretnine-bosna/listing-Stan+Prodaja+Stari+Grad+ul.+Mehmed+Pa%B9e+Sokolovi%E6a41,5+m2-9644.html</ref><ref>http://www.centar.ba/?jezik=bos&x=3&y=212&z=215</ref>.In town of ] there is a street named after ].("Ulica Sulejmana Veličanstvenog") .<ref>http://www.mupusk.gov.ba/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=267:bilten-19052009&catid=11:bilteni&Itemid=16</ref>}}

	Response:
	The question of Bosniak paternal lineages should by now really be settled by means of the Y-STR analysis. About 50% of Bosniaks belong to the European (it does not occur anywhere else in the world!) I haplogroup (I1b and I1a combined). It is more than for example Norwegians (!!!). It only shows that the people who claimed Turkish descent of Bosniaks (or muslim Bosnians, or "Bosnian Muslims") were in fact spreading malicious propaganda, nothing else. The same analysis in southern Serbia, for instance, shows non-European descent.

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


	Source:

	D. Marjanovic, S. Fornarino, S. Montagna, D. Primorac, R. Hadziselimovic, S. Vidovic, N. Pojskic, V. Battaglia, A. Achilli, K. Drobnic, S. Andjelinovic, A. Torroni, A. S. Santachiara-Benerecetti, O. Semino, "The Peopling of Modern Bosnia-Herzegovina: Y-chromosome Haplogroups in the Three Main Ethnic Groups", Annals of Human Genetic, 2005, p. 757-763

	Also, if in doubt, you can refer to the following for maps of the whole region:

	M. Pericic, L. B. Lauc, I. M. Klaric, S. Rootsi, B. Janicijevic, I. Rudan,R. Terzic, I. Colak, A. Kvesic, D. Popovic, A. Sijacki, I. Behluli, D. Dordevic, L. Efremovska, D. D. Bajec, B. D. Stefanovic, R. Villems, and P. Rudan. "High-resolution phylogenetic analysis of southeastern europe traces major episodes of paternal gene flow among slavic populations", Mol Biol Evol, 22(10):1964–1975, October 2005.


	J2 can be ascribed to Anatolians but also, for example, to groups such as Sephardic Jews, and it is not overrepresented when compared to other European populations. E3b1 occurs thoughout Balkans, and is actually higher in Serbs. If you care about "Other" which amounts to 8 % check the article, there is nothing significant there except that K is exteremly low, excluding the possibility of Asian P, Q, O, L etc. haplotypes.

	Also, do not delete this again claming I am nationalistic, and then repost your nonsense again later. BTW, if you do not understand what the data above means, let me explain it to you: Turkey might be our "mother", but the Turks certainly are not our fathers, or grand-fathers, or grand-grandfathers, or male ancestors in general. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	=== reflist ===
	<small>(references 3. and on)</small>
	{{reflist\|2}}

	=== Discussion ===

	], please outline your main objections to these two paragraphs, and to their sources. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 20:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

	:I think ]. This whole edit started out as an attempt to get back at me after I began editing ]. It should be mentioned in a sentence in the history section but certainly not have an entire section with provocative derogatory tones devoted to it. The sources should be backed up with more encyclopedic ones not house listings . lol ] (]) 23:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

	I agree, no special section. How would you phrase the paragraph for the History section? (I'm trying to see what you mind the most, so how would you phrase it while keeping the bare facts intact?) --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

	::This following Aradic-es around and cleaning up his mess has gone too far. It should be the job of Aradic-es to propose a well sourced neutral addition on the talk page and for other editors to agree/disagree, or suggest minor edits to his addition before inclusion. I personally think Aradic-es deserves a ban from editing this article. Particularly as his only addition seems to have been an attempt to annoy Bosniaks. However, if you wish to rewrite his additions then go ahead. I personally don't want to start editing articles on other peoples ethnicities. ] (]) 11:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

	Well, if you put it that way... :) Yeah I thought this might be the way things are perceived. No it just looks that way because the guy is blocked and I'm the only one talking to PRODUCER, its an unusual position for a would-be mediator if he can only properly discuss with one side. It is "Aradic's job", I agree, but from what I can see this addition isn't inherently biased. It ''sort of'' provides relatively NPOV information on the connections between Bosniaks and Turks. I'm frankly not very well knowledgeable in the Bosniak/Croat ethnic conflict, i.e. I don't know how Bosniaks stand on this. This is why I'm asking PRODUCER to clarify his objections to the text. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 12:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

	:Okay I will add in my thoughts then. The bit about street names conferring ethnic identity is totally ridiculous, in Britain we have roads named after every group who conquered Britain. The Romans, Vikings, Celts, Normans. Therefore the stuff on street names is rubbish, even if it was mentioned in a newspaper which I cannot tell because I can't read the language. The provocative chants of some football hooligans is unrepresentative and a bit insulting to put on the main page about an ethnicity, I suggest this article is not the place for it. Imagine me posting on the ] page "Many Croats identify themselves with Ustaše and want an ethnically pure Croatia, here are lots of football chants that verify it". I guarantee my edit would be removed instantly (shall I try it?). Maybe some of the other bits of the addition could stay, but as Ivan said above without the "implied mockery" added in by Aradic-es. It is this mockery that makes me think his addition was inflamatory and not worthy of our time except on the revert button. ] (]) 08:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

	LoL, nice suggestion, I certainly think you'd be correct :P. However, you're equating Ustaše with ](!), which is just a bit inappropriate :). The fact is that, as far as I know, Bosniaks do not mind being associated with Turks and Turkish culture. (Naturally the streets bit is o.u.t., no question.) --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 10:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
	:Definitely, it is obvious that there is identification, but football chants are surely not a reliable measure, particularly for a page on an ethnicity, I'd hate to be measured on this myself. Anyway I am no judge so I'll leave this and go for a Bosnian or Turkish coffee, I haven't decided yet :). ] (]) 16:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

	I would be wary of making sweeping generalizations, Polargeo. Street names might not mean much, but when a country, or portion of it, ''actively'' promulgate cultural links, not only at a "mob" level, but at a governmental one, then it is significant and noteworthy. Certainly, it should be clarified that it might not necessarily represent the general Bosnian Muslim population. As a post-thought, why shouldn't football chants be included ? Afterall, this would represent the how the 'average' Bosnian Muslim youth identify themselves. Afterall, what is most important is ''how'' a population sees itself. One could argue that this is more important than the most scholarly thesis on the ethnogenesis of Bosnian Muslims ] (]) 12:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

	:Okay Hxseek sorry about the generalisations but football chants cannot be used in the way they were being used. In this case they were being far more broadly interpreted on a page about an ethnicity than the source allows. What is needed are better more balanced sources that may put these chants into context. We should not decide on the context or what football chants mean in terms of ethnic identity on wikipedia or else that is original research by ]. In fact that was the main problem of the addition by Aradic-es. Put a load of stuff about street signs and football chants together and you have original research by synthesis. He may be correct but there isn't the place for rubbish additions like that here and it should not be the job of other editors to follow about tidying this sort of stuff up. ] (]) 10:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

	===My response===
	OK, let us see some bare facts:
	*Did ] said „ Turkey is our mother“-'''YES'''.I gave the source for that. I did not (and I bold this) '''call him or anybody else to be „Turk“'''
	*Were Bosniak fans (or to be more precise '''hooligans''') yelling „this is Turkey!“ and they were not in Turkey but in ] -'''YES'''.I gave the source for that,too.
	*Are streets in Bosniak majority named after Ottoman leaders- '''YES'''.I gave the source for that.

	For Sarajevo



	two independent sources (from Bosnia and herzegovina) are more that enough.
	For Bihać is source Local police website (Una-Sana canton police department)
	Other source (] , Sarajevo-X etc.) are Bosniak press and portals...
	Producer has certain problem:he believes that he has monopoly on a truth. Therefore he has right to delete everything he dislikes . Even sourced ones and even from the talk pages-by which right???

	Just for the illustration:
	He included rumours about Mate Boban
	, he included the paragraph about Croatian propaganda , but he persistently removes the very well sourced parts about Bosniak propaganda:






	„removing idiotic nationalist propaganda“ is his (very civil!! ) edit summary

	A statement that I delete all negative from articles about Croatian politician is a blatant '''LIE''' as well as his fake google results about Karađorđevo meeting.
	There are lot of bad things written about these leaders which I did not even try to delete-Everybody who can read English can see it.

	@DIREKTOR: that story about ustaše reminds me on a certain anegdote from the period of NDH:
	*] has a meeting of his cabinet and has a speech
	*Pavelić:Bosnian Muslims are the flower of Croatian people !(his famous sentence)
	*Some minister:Yes, indeed, they are : ] --] (]) 10:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


	====Identification of Bosniaks====
	Members of some ethnic group can often identify themselves with another ethnic group(s) although sometimes have nothing or very little in common. Therefore:
	*] do identify themselves with Scandinavians-although they are genetically only 6% Germanic and 45% Celtic and 30% Baltic and/or Slavic (according to Swiss institute for ], ))
	*] identify thmeselves with Romance-language speaking Europeans-although they are genetically much closer to Arabs
	*]-identify themselves Finns and other Finno-Ugric peoples-although they are genetically Slavic or Celtic
	*]-identify themseves with Turks!-despite the thing that they are genetically much closer to other South Slavs (Croats,Serbs,Montenegrins...)--] (]) 09:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

	==The addition of dubious Turkish figures by {{user\|Osmanović}}==
	Osmanović, I have reverted your additions yet again. Please stop adding poorly sourced, and horribly inflated population figures.

	The current revision itself is unsourced; 4.4 million as the high mark is a bit of a stretch, but it's been kept as the status-quo, and few people have a problem with this. But you, out of nowhere, and without a source, decided to inflate this already dubious figure of "2.4 - 4.4 million" to the highly inaccurate "3.5 - 5.2 million". Please, in the future, find reliable sources and discuss controversial changes on the talk page.

	You were right about figures for Spain being unsourced, therefore I have removed those.

	The "sources" you provided for the Turkish figures, however, are completely unreliable.

	* link from ] fails ], as it is not a credible published source, the publication regularly claims it's opinion as fact, they report rumours and gossip as fact, they advocate ], among other problems. With this in mind, one cannot possibly believe this source to be reliable when it comes to anything, particularly something as hard to get accurate data on as Bosniak ancestry.

	* you provided immediately fails ] as it is merely a ] of an outdated revision of this very article from a time when someone had added the same unsourced content you are attempting to add.

	I know you are only trying to improve the article, but in the future, please be sure to check if your source meets the ], otherwise your edit are pure ] and will be reverted. Thanks. ] (]) 02:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

	:Okay then. This is where i say, i'm out. That's it. There are possibly more than a million and a half Bosniaks in Turkey and wiki doesn't even have that information. If you're happy with it as a possible devoted wikipedia user.. you find the links. What you called unreliable there was the news coverage of the minority report, done by the Council of National Security of Turkey. It's not my fault it's scarcely linked. I don't know what good anymore and I really don't care. --] (]) 03:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

	The reason "wiki doesn't even have that information" is because there are no reliable sources that suggest figures anywhere near the amount you are claiming. As it has been stated numerous times, without a reliable source, population figures can't be changed. ] (]) 03:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

	Oh god i can't believe this. I've been hearing the same nerdy source talk for quite while now and it doesn't get any interesting when i know the significance of it very well already! It's a problem with you and like mined wiki contributors. Just because the article isn't in English, it doesn't automatically mean it's unreliable. I gave a link to a well-established Turkish newspaper's coverage about the ethnicity report, done by the National Security Council of Turkey. Go and translate or whatever. I don't care if you don't "like" the link. I don't like to believe language is the only thing that's preventing me from putting up that information when the info about Bosniaks in Serbia is represented with a source that's written in Serbian Cyrillic alphabet. "Oh, i don't understand it. So it's unreliable."
	Plus why does this page contain the same link that i put up here? http://en.wikipedia.org/Demographics_of_Turkey --] (]) 13:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

	:It's got nothing to do with the language. For fuck's sake, '''READ WHAT I WROTE'''! I'll copy/paste it here for you.

	''The "sources" you provided for the Turkish figures, however, are completely unreliable.

	''* link from ] fails ], as it is '''not a credible published source''', the publication regularly '''claims it's opinion as fact''', they '''report rumours and gossip as fact''', they '''advocate ]''', among other problems. With this in mind, one cannot possibly believe this source to be reliable when it comes to anything, particularly something as hard to get accurate data on as Bosniak ancestry.''

	''* you provided immediately fails ] as it is merely a ] of an outdated revision of this very article from a time when someone had added the same unsourced content you are attempting to add.''''

	Again, like I said it has ''nothing'' to do with the language of the source - '''non-English sources are fine, as long as they are reliable'''. Your "sources" are unreliable based on the above criteria according to ]. Period. ] (]) 07:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

	== Bosnian names of Hungarian origin? ==

	Could someone name an example? Thanks! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Image ==

	Are you trying to be funny, huh!? Because it's not funny.
	Do I have to repeat myself, Katarina Kosača has no connection to Bosnian Muslims (or as they call themselves Bosniaks), the only people in Bosnia and Herzegovina who have preserved memory of her are Bosnian Croats, so please remove her from this obviously idiotic image. ] (]) 22:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

			== Diaspora ==
	:I tried to remove it because she isn't a Bosniak, but I got reverted. Apparently the nationalist fanatics run this article, and everyone else is just happy to appease them. Oh well. ] (]) 06:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

			The image of diaspora you have put in this article is the diaspora of all the bosnians and not of the bosniaks. You must design a new map of Bosniak diaspora or you can just delete it. ] (]) 11:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
	::Sturmkrieger, how elaborately and subtly you are denying the existence of the Bosniak people in your post, you must think of yourself as very clever! And not to mention the ingenious reference of your user name to WWII Nazi soldiers, really being the crown jewel of your rampage on Misplaced Pages. Getting serious, Bosniaks are derived from Bosnjani, and Katarina Kosaca Kotromanic was a Bosnian queen of Bosnjanin nationality (i.e. nothing short of a Bosnian ethnicity). The choice of her picture is valid. Sturmkrieger, do not make your narrow-mindedness an issue of this article. ~~ <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			:Someone deleted the map completely, many countrys are missing and someone changed the number of Bosniaks world wide from 3 to 2 mill. Only Balkan has more then 2 mill (Turkye included) and with US, Kanada and EU countrys the number is around 3 mill. ] (]) 18:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
	::: It is indeed ridiculuous that Katarina Kosaca's picture is included here. At the beginning of this article, one comes across three points which seem to suggest that if one fulfills all of them, one is a Bosniak. They are:<br />

	:::Bosniaks are typically characterized by their tie to the Bosnian historical region,<br /> traditional adherence to Islam,<br /> and common culture and language.<br />

			== Bosniaks real numbers world wide ==
	:::Since she did not adhere to Islam, how then can she be considered a Bosniak? I am simply going along with the article, which, contradicts the placement of that picture in the collage. In this respect, it should be removed from it.

			Is there anyone who can change the population from 2 to 3 mill? Someone is playing with this page (Bosniaks) and the person deleted a lot of information. Someone wan't to make the numbers of Bosniaks in the world less then it actually is. Deleted countrys, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, France, Italy, Australia, Kanada and more. In Turkye there are 500 000 Bosniaks for example and it's estimated that there are even more. ] (]) 18:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
	:::] (]) 07:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

			== Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2023 ==
	Nor was there any Bosnianci nationality in the 14th century, even in the medival sense of the word. It was ruled by independent -minded nobility, often under foreign control (whether it was Dukljan, or Hungarian) with little centralized control, little religious homogeneity or structure, and little evidence for any sort of consciouness ] (]) 08:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

			{{Edit semi-protected\|Bosniaks\|answered=yes}}
	==Map==
			Please insert a period at the end of the sentence "Recent Anglophone scholarship has tended to downplay the role of migrations. For example Timothy Gregory conjectures that "It is now generally agreed that the people who lived in the Balkans after the Slavic "invasions" were probably for the most part the same as those who had lived there earlier, although the creation of new political groups and arrival of small numbers of immigrants caused people to look at themselves as distinct from their neighbours, including the Byzantines"". ] (]) 12:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
	Stop removing the map. See ] ] ]. Stop vandalizing the page. ] (]) 13:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
			:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 20:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

			== Someone misspelled "Horse skull" ==
	==Day of Mosques==
	Can someone elaborate on what Day of Mosques is? While I found some references, I'm not sure it really has any significance to Bosniak people in general and I have a feeling it's a recent invention.
	While Ferhadija-mosque and it's tear-down surely is relevant, "day of mosques" appears to be a made-up datemark which is not established in the tradition. I suggest removal. --] (]) 22:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

			"One of these traditions which could originate from the pre-Slavic era, is a Bosniak tradition of placing a horse's scull tied with a rope into river Bosna, to fight off drought." (190), unless that's how it is actually spelled I'm pretty sure it should be "horse's skull". ] (]) 17:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
	== This article about so called "Bosniaks" is disaster. ==

			:Done. ] (]) 16:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
	I do not know where to start but this is just rape of historical facts.
	1. Bosna is region same as Hercegovina is.
	2. King Tvrtko Kotromanic was Serbian King crowned by Serbian Nemanjic Dinasty Crown.
	3. Stecci are only present in Herzegovina and are written in Cyrilic alphabet.
	I was so grossed out reading this article's lies that i couldn't read any more. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== Error in article about Bosniak national affirmation process in SFRJ ==
	== Question? ==

			'Tito changed his view and stated that recognition of Muslims and their national identity should occur. In 1968 the move was protested in the Serb republic and by Serb nationalists such as Dobrica Ćosić.'
	Why is the picture of Tvrtko Kotromanić in the article? Under the picture it is written :"''The 14th century Bosnian king Tvrtko Kotromanić, is seen as an important aspect of the heritage of Bosniak people and Bosnians in general.''"

			No such thing called 'Serb Republic' existed at the time. It should state SR Serbia (Socialist Republic of Serbia). People might assume the post Dayton entity Serb Republic existed back in the 60's.
	I have to repeat, Bosnian Muslims (or as they call thmeselves Bosniaks) had no remembrance of the Bosnian kingdom nor the Bosnian state, so by that logic they had no remembrance of king Tvrtko.
	So now can somebody explain to me why "king Tvrtko Kotromanić, is seen as an important aspect of the heritage of Bosniak people"? ] (]) 18:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

			Somebody change please. Thank you.
	:This argument is a little tiresome. As I understand it the Bosniaks didn't suddenly turn up in Bosnia from Turkey, in the main part they were there already. So they have every bit as much right to claim the regional history as their own as do Croats or Serbs. People don't suddenly lose all of their regional identity because of historic conversion to Islam, which seems to be your argument. If that was the case Iranians would lose all historic links to the ]. Egyptians would lose all historic links to the ]s etc. So if a regional historic Bosnian figure is important to Bosniaks then people turning up here and saying they cannot claim this because they have no "remembrance" is not helpful, Particularly an ] who periodically returns to stir up trouble. ] (]) 06:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

			] (]) 18:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
	Then his picture should be under the ''History of Bosnia(ns)'' article, not Bosnian Muslims, if we want to be accurate here. ] (]) 08:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
	:When you can actually refer to this ethnicity as Bosniaks then I might even pay attention to your argument. I know you are a serious edior so this is disapointing. ] (]) 10:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:20, 13 June 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bosniaks article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Bosniaks. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Bosniaks at the Reference desk.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ethnic groups High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Bosnia and Herzegovina Top‑importance

	Bosnia and Herzegovina portal Bosniaks is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yugoslavia High‑importance

	Bosniaks is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Misplaced Pages coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Bosniaks/infobox page were merged into Bosniaks. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Diaspora

The image of diaspora you have put in this article is the diaspora of all the bosnians and not of the bosniaks. You must design a new map of Bosniak diaspora or you can just delete it. 188.172.110.89 (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Someone deleted the map completely, many countrys are missing and someone changed the number of Bosniaks world wide from 3 to 2 mill. Only Balkan has more then 2 mill (Turkye included) and with US, Kanada and EU countrys the number is around 3 mill. Vidorinac (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Bosniaks real numbers world wide

Is there anyone who can change the population from 2 to 3 mill? Someone is playing with this page (Bosniaks) and the person deleted a lot of information. Someone wan't to make the numbers of Bosniaks in the world less then it actually is. Deleted countrys, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, France, Italy, Australia, Kanada and more. In Turkye there are 500 000 Bosniaks for example and it's estimated that there are even more. Vidorinac (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please insert a period at the end of the sentence "Recent Anglophone scholarship has tended to downplay the role of migrations. For example Timothy Gregory conjectures that "It is now generally agreed that the people who lived in the Balkans after the Slavic "invasions" were probably for the most part the same as those who had lived there earlier, although the creation of new political groups and arrival of small numbers of immigrants caused people to look at themselves as distinct from their neighbours, including the Byzantines"". 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Done Tollens (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Someone misspelled "Horse skull"

"One of these traditions which could originate from the pre-Slavic era, is a Bosniak tradition of placing a horse's scull tied with a rope into river Bosna, to fight off drought." (190), unless that's how it is actually spelled I'm pretty sure it should be "horse's skull". Hellothereperso (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Governor Sheng (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Error in article about Bosniak national affirmation process in SFRJ

'Tito changed his view and stated that recognition of Muslims and their national identity should occur. In 1968 the move was protested in the Serb republic and by Serb nationalists such as Dobrica Ćosić.'

No such thing called 'Serb Republic' existed at the time. It should state SR Serbia (Socialist Republic of Serbia). People might assume the post Dayton entity Serb Republic existed back in the 60's.

Somebody change please. Thank you.

185.209.198.94 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Categories: