Talk:Bosniaks

Archives /Archive1: - June 2006 /Archive 2 - October 2007 (primarily)

Bosniaks in Denmark

Hi! Since there are alot of bosniaks in denmark i thought it would be a good idea to put denmark on the list in the box. Since i accidentaly fuck'd it up a bit. Then i hope someone else can edit it. My link for the informations comes from this source http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1280 or in english http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1280

Ther are no Illyrian genetics

Ther is no Illyrian genetics nor Wilkes was anthropolog, nor Coon states that you people are Illyrians, you can create false links and false data but Pyramids and those Illyrians ships, i am afraid, are not of Serb/Bosniak/Muslimanac eeheheheh origin sorry, but go ahed here in wikipedia you kan create links with Illyrians as Fyroms create links with Alexander the great ehhehehehehee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.229.160 (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here it is, we have consensus finally, how Bosniaks are a totally different tribe to Serbs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I1b_(Y-DNA) 77.78.198.147 (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important Dates in Bosniak history

I will have to agree with Montenegro Interactive, the dates I removed only have to do with Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina and not with Bosniaks in general, even if 90% of Bosniaks are from Bosnia. What about the 10% of Bosniaks outside of Bosnia and Herzegovina that aren't from Bosnia, i.e. from Montenegro, Serbia or the Republic of Macedonia? Aren't dates from the Bosniaks there important as well? Either way, I have created the Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the following reasons: to explain the Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina and to keep the article about Bosniaks to be about Bosniaks in general, and not mostly about the Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Pointe LaRoche 00:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't remove important dates of Bosniaks, because some can think that you are malicious and that you are a sockpuppet of Montenegro Interactive which means you can be blocked indefinitely. The source about the dates of Bosniaks is "History of Bosniaks" by Imamovic Mustafa. Btw, what about the dates of Turkish people in Germany, or Irish people in USA? Bosniaks are identified with Bosnia as an ethnic state, just as Irish people with Ireland, no matter where they live. Also, there isn't article called Irish of Ireland, just Irish. If you continue to misuse Wikipedia, I will devote my life to follow your edits and you sockpuppets. Bye. 85.158.33.85 00:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Bosniaks aren't Bosnians! Bosniaks kept there heritage in Bihor, a region in Montenegro, not in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and are true Bosniaks. When the Bosniaks in Montenegro were gaining notability, that's when the Bosnian Muslims decided to go with them and began to declare themselves Bosniaks. Bosniaks aren't ethnically tied to Bosnia, either, except for those who are from Bosnia. BTW, Mustafa Imamović was a Bosnian Bosniak, there is a difference. This article, as per what Pointe LaRoche says, shouyld be about Bosniaks in general, not mostly about the Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and no, Mr. LaRoche isn't my sockpuppet. For God's sake, I don't even know who he is. --Montenegro Interactive 02:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no true or false Bosniaks. Please, restrain yourself from racist arguments. I will report you, and Pax, and other sockpuppets who do this. "Bosnian Muslims" decided to become Bosniaks, according to whom?! My grandfather and whole family always called themselves Bosniaks, or "Bošnje" (in Bosnian) and they are from the bottom of Bosnia. Now, your claim confirms your racist motive. You deny Bosniaks to be Bosniks, saying that Bosnian Muslims decided to be Bosniaks?! It is the main cause of genocide committed on Bosniaks by Serbs helped by Montenegrins (Novak Kilibarda), because they denied Bosniaks to be Bosniaks. Ottomans called my people Bosniaks, Njegoš called them Bosniaks, and they called themselves Bosniaks. And when you say that "real" Bosniaks are from Montenegro, and that they don't have ties with Bosnia, how possibly do they have Bosnia in their ethnic name? A little common sense wouldn't kill you. 85.158.33.136 09:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Šako and Dado Polumenta are Bosniaks from Montenegro and they don't have any ethnic ties to Bosnia nor are from Bosnia. Neither does Jašar Ahmedovski from the Republic of Macedonia. Nor Emina Jahović, her brother Mirsad and Elma Sinanović, who are all from Novi Pazar in Serbia. What about Rasim Ljajić, the only Bosniak minister in the Serbian government? Not even him. And I can continue with this list if you would like me to. --Montenegro Interactive 02:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about Šako and Polumenta, I don't even know who they are. Emir Kusturica also doesn't have any ethnic ties to Serbia, nor Ivo Andric, and they are Serbs. If you want to write about them, that's ok, but this is racism. 85.158.33.136 09:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Rascism?!?!?! How is this rascism? I myself come from a Montenegrin-Bosniak family. Those people I mentioned have no ethnic ties to Bosnia, that's what I meant for all those people. --Montenegro Interactive 21:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about Montenegro. If you want to write about it, I don't care, but if you continue to write lies about Bosniaks, I will also write smth about Montenegrins, such as their genocide role against my people in cooperation with Slobodan Milosevic.

Your people are the Bosnian Muslims that turned to Bosniakhood after the Bosniaks in Sandzak began gaining notability with the Bosniak nation. The Montenegrins didn't genocide, they only helped out of fear because Serbia was "bigger and better" and since Montenegro was small, they didn't want war to come to them out of fear because they feared that Serbia would crush and say good-bye to Montenegro. Think about it. --Montenegro Interactive 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Listen here, buddy. Thanks to Šerbo Rastoder and other Bosniaks from Montenegro, the Bosniak name came back. What you are being told are lies. BTW, my family as I said is Bosniak, but they aren't tied with Bosnia in any way whatsoever. --Montenegro Interactive 13:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Your sentences are contradict. First, I don't believe you, and I don't care. Second, you say that Bosniak name came back, as it didn't exist before, and after that you say you are from Bosniak family?! So your lies are clear. 85.158.32.121 22:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Who says you have to believe me? You believe whatever you want to believe, but I am truthfully telling you what is the truth. You have been told lies, my friend. The Bosniak nation (and name) existed before but you fail to realise that. The Bosniak name and culture was kept with the Bosniaks of Bihor (in Montenegro) (who were known as Muslims at that time), not the Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Bosniaks from Bihor are what everyone in Montenegro call "the place where true Bosniaks are from", of which my family is from. You fail to realise that as you were told a propogandist story of the Bosniak nation and its history. O, and my, I do come from a Bosniak family who fought for the Bosniak nation. My grandfather, a Bosniak, was a big speaker for the Bosniaks in the Montenegrin parliament. He fought hard for Bosniak rights, however, he died before he was able to see what name the Bosniaks have now and one of his long awaited dreams, to see Montenegro become independent. I'm even fighting for Bosniak rights just like my grandfather once did. So, you can't say I don't come from a Bosniak family, because I do. --Montenegro Interactive 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nor are any of my other Bosniak friends in Montenegro. So you believe what you want to believe since we do have different views on different topics. --Montenegro Interactive 13:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrins committed genocide against Bosniaks, so I see what is your goal here, but no pasaran my friend. 85.158.32.121 22:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrins never committed genocide against Bosniaks during the Bosnian war. And if they did, find evidence to prove your biased accusation. And what is my goal? The only goal I have right know is to spread the truth about the Bosniaks, not some propogandist, biased lies. Most of the article about Bosniaks are about the Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina and their history, not about the Bosniaks in general.--Montenegro Interactive 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've restored an unreferenced tag to this section. I propose removing the section completely to stop this edit-warring if no sources can be provided. --Ronz 22:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about the dates anymore, this is about a war about Bosniaks. --Montenegro Interactive 02:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it isn't about creating a good wikipedia article by following wiki policies and guidelines then it's not going to remain in its current form for much longer. --Ronz 17:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is about you who are malicious and who want to fabricate the facts. I can understand what happened during the war, but I don't understand why again and here?! 85.158.32.121 22:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the reference ISBN 9958-815-00-1 given by 85.158.32.21, along with a failed verification tag. If anyone can list the dates actually provided from this source, we can just remove the others and be done with it. --Ronz 23:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article for verification: Important dates to Bosniaks

• 29 August 1189 - Bosnian statehood charter by ruler Kulin Ban
• 3 July 1436 - Document mentioning Bosnian language
• 25 October 1478 Death of Katarina Kosača-Kotromanić, last Bosnian Queen, in exile in Rome
• 29 March 1831 - The Great Bosnian uprising
• 25 November 1943 - Day of the republic
• 6 May 1950- "Cazin uprising" against Communists and their agrarian reforms
• 2 May 1991 - Day of the Patriotic league
• 1 March 1992 - The Independence day
• 15 April 1992 - Day of the Army of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (today day of Bosniak unit - part of Defence forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina)
• 7 May 1993 - Day of mosques
• 28 September 1993 - Official rebirth of a national name
• 6 March 1995 - Day of the first Bosnian flag
• 11 July 1995 - Day of genocide
• 14 December 1995 - The Dayton agreement
• 4 February 1998 - Day of the flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina
• 19 October 2003 - Death of Alija Izetbegović, first president of independent Bosnia and Herzegovina

I removed the above from the 18:09, 31 August 2007 version [1]. We now have two references that fail to verify the list. I don't think we should add any list back at all until we get complete quotes from references we intend to use, then make a list using only the dates listed in the references. The references so far are:

• Imamović, Mustafa (1996). Historija Bošnjaka. Sarajevo: BZK Preporod. ISBN 9958-815-00-1
• Enver Imamović, Korijeni Bosne i bosanstva, Sarajevo 1995

--Ronz 18:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I just oppose adding the first three - because it doesn't make pretty much sense to add them. That's all. --PaxEquilibrium 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would generally oppose keeping most of these dates as these dates only have to do with the Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina. But of course, no one will listen to me. So instead, I'll give you my list of which ones to remove because I don't see why they are needed in the first place:

• • 29 August 1189 - Bosnian statehood charter by ruler Kulin Ban
  • 3 July 1436 - Document mentioning Bosnian language
  • 25 October 1478 Death of Katarina Kosača-Kotromanić, last Bosnian Queen, in exile in Rome
  • 6 May 1950- "Cazin uprising" against Communists and their agrarian reforms
  • 6 March 1995 - Day of the first Bosnian flag
  • 4 February 1998 - Day of the flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • 19 October 2003 - Death of Alija Izetbegović, first president of independent Bosnia and Herzegovina

--Montenegro Interactive 01:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspectives. Hopefully this will simply come down to what can be verified. --Ronz 17:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Montenegro Interactive pretty much got it. --PaxEquilibrium 18:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Validation

This is clear example of Serb intention against Bosniaks. ICJ ruled that Serbs had specific intention to destroy Bosniaks in Eastern Bosnia. It was called genocide. I think this is the same thing here, because I gave you two sources to confirm the dates, which are important to Bosniaks (You Serbs shouldn't worry about it, because those dates are important to Bosniaks, not to Serbs, so you don't have to delete it, if you don't like it; no more genocide behaviour). But, if you like, I will validate this dates, not because of you (it is pretty clear what are you trying to do here), but for those who wants to read it:

• 29 August 1189 (Page 32, "History of Bosniaks" - II Chapter (Birth of Bosnian state))
• 3 July 1436 - (Page 15, "History of Bosniaks" - Introduction)
• 25 October 1478 Death of Katarina Kosača-Kotromanić, last Bosnian Queen, in exile in Rome (Page 114, "The roots of Bosnia and Bosnianhood" -E.Imovic - "Do we need a queen?")
• 29 March 1831 - The Great Bosnian uprising (Page 333, "History of Bosniaks")
• 25 November 1943 - Day of the republic (It is celebrated every year by Bosniak Institutions, and in Bosniak dominated parts of Bosnia; Also it is still legal holiday according to Deyton agreement)
• 2 May 1991 - Day of the Patriotic league (It is celebrated every year by Bosniak Institutions)
• 1 March 1992 - The Independence day (It is celebrated every year by Bosniak Institutions, and in Bosniak dominated parts of Bosnia)
• 15 April 1992 - Day of the Army of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (today day of Bosniak unit - part of Defence forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina) (Celebrated according to military law of Bosnia and Herzegovina)
• 7 May 1993 - Day of mosques (Page 259, "Takvim 2007")
• 28 September 1993 - (Page 17, "History of Bosniaks" - Introduction)
• 11 July 1995 - (Page 259, "Takvim 2007")

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.33.176 (talk • contribs) 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you shouldn't be calling us Serbs, as they may be a personal attack to some, like me. I am no Serb, I am a proud Montenegrin Bosniak. If you have a problem with this, then go to the Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina article. This is the reason why it was created. What we are trying to do on the "Bosniaks" article is the make the article to talk about Bosniaks in general, not mostly about Bosniaks of BiH, something you are trying to do and for that reason, I believe you should go and do you business in the Bosniaks of BiH article, as mentioned earlier. --Prevalis 00:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it until another editor validates it, given with the past problems we've had with editors erroneously claiming sources properly validated the information. --Ronz 19:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Further, this could be a case of WP:OR, given that the notes above indicate these dates are found across multiple pages of multiple sources. --Ronz 19:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"ICJ ruled that Serbs had specific intention to destroy Bosniaks in Eastern Bosnia. It was called genocide." The ICJ did no such thing. See the ICJ press release that makes it quite clear:

(2) by thirteen votes to two,

Finds that Serbia has not committed genocide, through its organs or persons whose acts engage its responsibility under customary international law, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;

(3) by thirteen votes to two,

Finds that Serbia has not conspired to commit genocide, nor incited the commission of genocide, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;

(4) by eleven votes to four,

Finds that Serbia has not been complicit in genocide, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;

(5) by twelve votes to three,

Finds that Serbia has violated the obligation to prevent genocide, under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in respect of the genocide that occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995;

--Philip Baird Shearer 08:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Philip: Western people know what happened, no matter what the Serbs and Russians paid the ICJ officials, we saw death camps in the western media, so it's too late for people like you fortunately. Holocaust deniers are just that Holocaust deniers. Fortunately it is standard practice that nobody really takes them seriously. 83.67.73.117 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've provided a very good reason

User "Ancient Land of Bosoni" continues to promote a biased view of Bosnian history, treating Bosniak Muslim and Bosnian-Herzegovinian historical figures as virtually the same. According to his view, Bosniaks are the only legitimate heirs to Bosnian history and culture. Nevermind the cultural legacy of Bosnian Croat Franciscans and others. Bosnian Croats and Serbs who consider themselves Bosanci as well do not factor at all, according to him.

At least acknowledge that King Tvrtko was a Christian monarch, and the steccak tombs were erected by members of all three churches alike. If you want a good page to post those pictures, I suggest you direct them to the Wikipedia page on Bosnians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.39.246 (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so.. I fail to see the problem. Croats and Servs/Serbs may share the same heritage, and everybody knows that people of the "Ancient Land of Bosoni" have not been driven out, as there is zero evidence of any conquest of those people by Servian Slavic tribe. BosnianHolocaustSurvior 01:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The article does not describe these bosnian monuments and kings as solely Bosniak, if you read carefully it says 'Bosnian' not 'Bosniak'. Ancient Land of Bosoni —Preceding comment was added at 19:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bosnians and Bosniaks

If Bosniaks (Bošnjaci) want to be a people, it is fine, why not. Who are Peruvians, as an example. Citizens of an country. So bosniaks want to be recognized as new nation, members of an country. But in their wish, they must not endanger other Bosnians (Bosanci), Bosnian croatians and Bosnian Serbs. If we agree, Bosnians are citizens of Bosnia, disregard of their religion, and Bosniaks are people from Bosnia with muslim religion. For moment two terms are more or less one. --Billy the lid 11:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, not all Bosniaks are from Bosnia. The term "Bosniak" is now generally being applied to Muslims in the countries of former Yugoslavia. --Prevalis 22:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

please put the flag of sanjak!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.129.8.133 (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No need for this numbers

there is one thing i dont understand... and it is about this table on the right side(number of bosniaks not living in Bosnia and H.). why is there the number of muslims living in these countries? are they supposed to be bosniaks too?! like i would write(e.g. english people in China: 50000 (12 mil. christians))!? thanks!

A lot of Bosniaks claim that those people who declare themselves "Muslims" are Bosniaks. And then there are those Bosniaks who say Islam has nothing to do with being Bosniak. Hmm... Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the solution is to this. Of course we need to carefully document what sources we use. If there are competing sources, we should probably discuss them here on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

The lead section is drifting away from WP:LEAD. It should summarize what is in the main article. It shouldn't be the main and sole place for presenting information. --Ronz (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Dates

As this is allegedly a free encyclopedia I re-added date section about important dates to Bosniaks. All dates are sourced so I don't see the problem here? Can anyone explain me the date section deletion? Grandy Grandy (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bosniaks#Important_Dates_in_Bosniak_history Talk:Bosniaks#Moved_from_article_for_verification:_Important_dates_to_Bosniaks Talk:Bosniaks#Important_Dates_in_Bosniak_history_-_yet_again --Ronz (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So the problem is...?! Where is the explanation? Grandy Grandy (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bosniaks#Important_Dates_in_Bosniak_history_-_yet_again --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin,

{{editprotect}}

There is a contradiction in the article. It says "Most Bosnians are Muslim". Earlier on however it says that they are only 40%, and therefore constitue perhaps a plurality rather than a majority. Therefore I kindly request the admin to replace the words "Most Bosnians" to the words "A plurality of Bosnians" or something to those lines.Tourskin (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It says "most Bosniaks are muslim". That K makes a big difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.64.169 (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

N article does not have that specific phrase. SkierRMH (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Which causes the same problem actually, so there is a contradiction still as per CIA claims which state that Bosniaks are not exclusively of Muslim religion. In fact I went to Bosnia recently and I've yet to meet a religous person amongst the Bosniak population. They seem to have lost all trust in religion after the Genocide they've endured. 83.67.73.117 20:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Tip of advice, you shouldn't have said that they seem to have lost all trust in religion because believe it or not, many Bosnian Bosniaks are deep into religion, especially Islam. You should watch Bosnian TV more and read Bosnian Bosniak sites more often. :) --Prevalis 21:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I do, and you're wrong, because Bosnian media is run by the West and it's loaded with things like "Friends" and American+European films. I've been there last year, and got bored of it. There is common mourning of mass graves and stuff like that with people filmed praying, but that's about the only praying those people do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.73.117 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Zzzzzzzz.....run by the West? Heard that a billion times, and that's where you're wrong. They only syndicate foreign programming because they don't have much programming of their own and need that extra airtime to be filled. Am I the only with common sense? --Prevalis 21:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Great so you've gone back on your previous statements. Secondly, western powers have many military bases in Bosnia and pull all the decision making strings, unfortunately for Russia. It wouldn't be a mature dispute, to dispute that. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.73.117 (talk • contribs) 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't be making obvious statement like yours because many already know this. --Prevalis 23:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My appologies.83.67.73.117 10:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all Bosnians are Muslim, but most Bosniaks are Muslims. Whether or not they are practicing Muslims is irrelevant; they still belong to the religion - I doubt all 1 billion Catholics go to Church every Sunday, but it doesn't stop them from being counted as Catholics. Frvernchanezzz 11:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Not all Bosniaks are Muslim as per definition in CIA.GOV and as per my personal observation that not only "not all Bosniaks are Muslim" but that Most Bosniaks(non Slavic) are not Muslim and affiliate themselves to being Bosniak and quite specifically have given up on religion entirely.83.67.73.117 12:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You're not listening though - the sentence is Most Bosniaks are Muslim - this is 100% factually true - whether or not some (or even a significant minority) Bosniaks are not Muslim is irrelevant, as the majority are. Frvernchanezzz 07:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong title

"18th century Bosniak festival" painting actually represents "Liberation in WWII" (of Bihac, I think). Folks in the painting look oriental, but soldiers are WWII partisans. This painting is a known work of art. 99.229.96.231 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If the painting cannot be properly identified, I think it should be removed per WP:V. --Ronz 17:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is it: "Liberation of Jajce" (in WWII), made in 1950s, author: Ismet Mujezinović 99.229.96.231 (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good work. Can you provide something here so that we can all verify this? --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Need for sources for this article!

For such a contentious subject matter as this appears to be it would be a great help if the article was properly sourced. Preferably with sources available online. Today, large parts of the text are completely unsourced. This may contribute to the disagreements. I've found a couple of sources which look to be both useful and reliable. If there are other, please add (or take out if you find them to be unsuitable, though please state why).Osli73 12:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Bosniak or Muslim, by Bohdana Dimitrovova, Central European University, Budapest, October 2001
• National identity, Islam and politics in post-communist Bosnia-Hercegovina, by Aydin Babuna, East European Quarterly, 22 December 2005
• Bosnian Muslims —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osli73 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your sources seem to claim that Bosniak ethnic group is 2billion people strong. Muslim ethnic group? HAHAHAHA :D NeutralBosnian 13:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In ex-Yugoslavia Bosniacs were referred to as Moslem national group (capital M). So it's no HAHAHA. Term Bosniac emerged in late 1980's. 142.201.5.100 18:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Which goes to prove why it collapsed and how uneducated, fascist and baseless Yugoslavia was by using a religion to refer to an ethnic group which was quite possibly an attempt to airbrush a whole people which is precisely why we need to rely on genetics more in this article. Further - your 1980's claim is in contradiction with many sources used in this article. NeutralBosnian 18:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. The term Moslem was the first term to describe the people that used to be called Turks (incorrect and probably insulting), or Serb-muhammedans (even Alija Izetbegovic used this term early on). 142.201.5.100 21:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Learn to read. The sources don't even come close to claiming there are 2 billion Bosnian muslims. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wilkes information

Can someone please provide a direct quote for the reference below?

For example, the prominent anthropologist John J. Wilkes regards Bosniaks (and Bosnians in general) as the possible descendants of Illyrians - John J. Wilkes, "The Illyrians" (Wiley; New Ed edition (November 30, 1995)). Chapter 9, Imperial Illyrians, page 254-281.

I think "prominent" is just WP:Peacock without some references provided here. I've looked for such references, but cannot find any. I don't believe it needs sourcing within the article if we can agree on his stature here on the talk page. --Ronz 03:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. He's hardly prominent in any way. And if his ridiculous claims had any merit, then other "prominent" academics would agree - but they don't. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And you say that without sources as expected. Which proves your bias and non-neutral arguments. You clearly favour the Slavophile agenda. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/staff/profiles/wilkes.htm I doubt anybody would want to declare somebody like this under WP:Peacock. 83.67.73.117 (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:Peacock says, "Instead of telling the reader that a subject is important, use facts to show the subject's importance".

WP:NPOV is also extremely helpful here because we need to present Wilkes information in a balanced and unbiased fashion.

While I don't think we can or should write about Wilkes in much detail in this article, I think we do need to discuss (and source) what we want to say about him. 83.67.73.117 has given his staff profile as a source. While this is helpful, it is not a source from which we can determine how to discuss him in a balanced and unbiased fashion. For that we need independent sources per WP:NPOV --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wilkes is not prominent. For now, I'll leave the quote attributed to him in the article, but I will be removing the word "prominent" right now. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic make up

The intro paragraph on this article is poor.

"Bosniaks belong to the Slavic ethnic group, but their genetic make-up is a mixture of Slav settlers and descendants of pre-Slavic indigenous Illyrian tribes. [2][3]. For example, the prominent anthropologist John J. Wilkes regards Bosniaks (and Bosnians in general) as the possible descendants of Illyrians[4]. In addition, Celts and to a lesser extent Goths who spanned the Balkans for distinct periods, often encountering Illyrians, may have influenced today's Bosnian population.[citation needed]"

Whilst there is a opinion amongst scholars that virtually all the south slavs may have absorbed elements of the original Balkan populations, such as Illyrians, the subsequent reference to Goths and Celts is far-fetched. Whilst the Celts and Goths certainly had a presence in the Balkans, albeit brief and long beofre the arrival of slavs, there is nothing to suggest that they actually contribued to the genetic make up of modern Bosniaks. They migrated elswhere subsequently. Even if a few remnant families stayed behind, this would hardly constitue 'genetic contribution'. Such a wishy-washy statement needs to be removed if the standards we aim to achieve are to be attained. Hxseek 07:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah all that genetics stuff is, to put it simply, bullshit (pardon my French). But it's hard to keep it out as most Bosniaks really want to distinguish themselves from Serbs and Croats - which is fine, as all nations should have a right to self determination. So although I would like to completely remove the genetics crap from this and other ethnic articles, the best bet is to try and reach a compromise which isn't so blatantly POV. Frvernchanezzz 07:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As I pointed out above in Talk:Bosniaks#WP:LEAD, the introduction needs to be rewritten. If no one responds to my request for verification on the Wilkes reference Talk:Bosniaks#Wilkes_information, it will need to be trimmed down if not removed completely. --Ronz 18:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course every people has a right to self-determination. But we cannot just invent some special magical heritage just to feel good about ourselves, at least not for the purposes of an encyclopedia Hxseek (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

- This subject is being repeated yet again. It gets resolved and started again and again. I suggest removal of this one as it started with adult language, only for that reason and tidyness and avoidance of battles, no other agenda. I suggest Ronz and Frvernchanezzz see: WP:TALK, WP:SOAP, and WP:BATTLE. 83.67.73.117 (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:CON, WP:TALK, and WP:NOT. Articles change. Consensus changes. Editors are encouraged to use article talk pages to discuss the problems they see in the article and work toward improving it.

Please join the discussion rather than call for an end to it. It would be helpful for you to point out where it was last resolved and your perspective on those past discussions. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose the term 'South Slavic' as WP:PEACOCK for reasons of absolutely no independent sources provided, while genetic studies conclude that roughly 10% of Bosniak genetic heritage is of non-indigenous-European origin which is roughly the same as most European nations. As this is a disputed subject, I propose that we rely solely on genetic evidence provided to trace ancient tribal movements to conclude heritage, instead of just taking one side or another (Bosniak Illyrian claim vs Slavophile Slavic claim). That sounds like a neutral approach. NeutralBosnian (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. The only mention of 'South Slavic' in this discussion so far is by you. What are you referring to? --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to the Ethnic description in the introduction part of the page.NeutralBosnian (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I don't understand what the dispute is about, but South Slav is an existing article, so it's hopefully just a matter of agreement from the other editors here. --Ronz (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that South Slavs lists Bosniaks as a South Slavic people, I can see no reason for it's deletion. --Ronz (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Noel Malcolm is someone Bosniaks often quote when regarding their history. In his book "Bosnia A Short History", Malcolm clearly states that the inhabitants of Bosnia (i.e, Bosniaks) were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia. Not Illyrians, or Aryans, or any other anachronistic claim. Bosniaks are Slavs. All of mainstream science knows and accepts it. This issue should well and truly be over, and this talk should be archived. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I disagree on the archiving, as there are multiple discussions by multiple editors concerning this section of the article. The paragraph in question should at least be moved out of the lead section and into the main article. If it cannot be better verified, then perhaps it should be removed altogether. --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosnians shouldn't be treated as an ethnicity because they are some weird mixture of Croats and Serbs and their section should be deleted from the South Slavs page. The only thing that connects them is their islam religion that is not enough to make them a saparate branch of the south slavs. They shouldn't be called bosniaks, they should be called Bosnian muslims or just muslims or even the bad name Balija but certainly not just Bosniak. Pre-WW2 they weren't a separate ethnicity. Many ancestors of these so called Bosniaks have fought for the ustasha regime and in WW2 described themselves as Croats and after the war they said that the Ustashas forced them to do that which is a nonsense because many of these Bosniaks know if they ancestor was of orthodox or catholic religion before they turned to islam. I don't know why they are considered as a ethnicity because they have no past, no language and no heretage. Their symbol is a lily which is a pre-ottoman symbol of Croats. Maybe the Tito gave them as a separate ethnicity because he wanted to make a tampon-nation between Croatia and Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carib canibal (talk • contribs) 18:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

They might be a mixture, but which nation isn't? They most certainly aren't a "weird" one too. Claiming that the Bosniaks were invented by Tito is erroneous, or especially outrageous that they were invented in 1993 when the Bosniac name was reintroduced to the Bosnian Muslims - the Bosnian Muslims had their own unique identity under the Yugoslav Partisans in WWII, and the Bosnian Muslims maintained their own identity as Yugoslavs of Islamic faith in the Yugoslavian Kingdom, an important factor. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Page protection & disputes

I don't think we've made much headway with the disputes that resulted in the page protection. I'll request page protection again if the same disputes just begin anew once protection is lifted. --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's almost certain to happen again. I think the page would either have to be very closely monitored by multiple neutral administrators, or the page will be perennially protected. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also for this to be kept protected untill everybody calms down, and becomes aware that not only violence and Slavophile agenda is valid. Please try to be neutral and the perspective should be from Bosniak perspective and not from Slavophile because Serb and Russian media claim that Serb soldiers were the victims in Srebrenica which is insane to most. http://www.serbianna.com/features/srebrenica/ 83.67.73.117 (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As an outsider who happened to see this article mentioned on WP:AN/I, & has no serious interest in its content, I'd like to offer a piece of advice. A couple of places above, I saw people using phrases like "Listen Buddy" & "You're not listening". This language not only shows its user getting angry, but also would makes the person it is directed at angry. Angry people cannot find a way to arrive at a consensus & get out of this impass over this article. My suggestion is that when you feel compelled to talk like this, step back, take a deep breath & try to find less aggressive language in this matter. Try a word like "friend" or, if you honestly feel that you are not being heard, explain patiently that you already said something & ask sincerely if your argument was unclear. At worst, you're keeping calm while the person you are talking with potentially will lose her/his cool -- which is likely to get them blocked from editting. At best, if both of you engage in a conversation civilly, maybe some of you will reach this semi-legendary thing known as a consensus, get the article unlocked, & will make at least one contribution to Wikipedia that all parties can be proud of. -- llywrch (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And on that note, can an admin please stop Ronz from modifying my text and reshaping my sentences, it looks insane to have to fight for your own sentences with undo wars? 83.67.73.117 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I simply split up what you wrote into two different parts so we could all deal with the different topics you wrote about separately. This is standard practice in talk pages when responding to editors that address many different topics in one long comment. I've restored your comments above, and kept another copy below. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Llywrch wrote, "A couple of places above, I saw people using phrases like...": Excellent advise. I'd only add that it is perfectly acceptable, and even encouraged, for editors to WP:REFACTOR their own edits for clarity and appropriateness. I am always willing to so with my own at others' requests, and will do so regardless if I see I've written something that is causing confusion. --Ronz (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that although you may be right about that Ronz, as a show of good faith you don't refactor 83.67.73's comments? If I sound like just another busybody, feel free to ignore this comment. -- llywrch (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done no such refactoring. I did split his comments for discussion, a standard method of better addressing an editors comments, but when I saw that he didn't understand what I had done, I undid the split and simply made two copies for two different discussions. --Ronz (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Jut in passing Ronz please consider what the last paragraph in lead section of WP:REFACTOR says and also the comments on WP:TALK#Others' comments. If there is a break down in good faith the last thing anyone needs is an edit war over the talk page, it is better to revert "a split" if the other person complains even if you think that is all it is. You can always quote the parts of the other person text you wish to reply to in new sections which will have the same effect without touching the other persons talk page contribution. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what I did over a day ago.[2]. I'm sorry that I didn't make it clear when I immediately explained [3] and explained again [4]. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

ABOUT BOSNIANS ( BOSNIKS, BOSNIAN MUSLIMS) IN SANDZAK AND OTHER TERRITORIES

I WANNA SAY FEW WORDS REGARDING BOSNIAN PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF BOSNIA

Known fact in the history is that Bosnia was Willaya inside of Ottoman Empire for almost 600 years and borders of Bosnia are known as well. Sancak Of Yeni Bazar was taken away from Bosnia after Berlin Congress in 1887 and divided betweeen Serbia and Montenegro. As well other parts of Bosnia which are now parts of Serbia and Montenegro. Another thing important to remember is that ethnicity or term we use now nationality didnt have any meaning in Ottoman empire. But if we are to speak about it its good to remind that majority in all towns in Montengero by 1864 were muslims (Bosnians), as well towns in serbia such s Uzice, Sokolac, Sabac and many others. People were either muslims or non muslims until collapse of Ottoman Empire and raise of nationalism in 19 century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive

I suggest we now archive the silly debate about Bosniaks not being Slav, since the 2 anon's and NeutralBosnian were found to be the same user - a ban evading sock (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NeutralBosnian) Frvernchanezzz (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Ronz (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Malcom's quote

As for the question of whether the inhabitants of Bosnia were really Croat or really Serb in 1180, it cannot be answered, for two reasons: first, because we lack evidence, and secondly, because the question lacks meaning. We can say that the majority of the Bosnian territory was probably occupied by Croats - or at least, by Slavs under Croat rule - in the seventh century; but that is a tribal label which has little or no meaning five centuries later. The Bosnians were generally closer to the Croats in their religious and political history; but to apply the modern notion of Croat identity (something constructed in recent centuries out of religion, history, and language) to anyone in this period would be an anachronism. All that one can sensibly say about the ethnic identity of the Bosnians is this: they were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia

Whilst malcom's first sentence is great and agreeable, he unfortunately lets himself down a little. What is now central and eastern Bosnia, as well as herzegovina, thus the majority of "bosnia' per se, where actually part of Baptised Serbia back in the 7-10th centuries. Additionally, its early political history fluctuated between periods of Croat and Serb influence, although certainly from the 12th century it had more in common with Croatia because of the mutual Hungarian domination. And as for religious 'ties' we all well know that there were 3 different Christian followings in Bosnia before the arrival of Islam, whereas Croatia was wholly Catholic. So i suggest his quote is either removed or elaborated upon and corrected in a subsequent paragraph. Furthermore, I do not see why we have to beat around the bush about the ethnicity- we can simply day that what is now Bosnia was originally inhabited by Serb and Croat tribes that subsequently developed somewhat of an idependent identity and political existence Hxseek (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Very good points. I'm reluctant to remove it as it is sourced. Do you have some sources for the subsequent paragraph? --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. Here are a couple

According to The Serbs. S M Cirkovic. 2004 Bosnia was part of 'Baptised Serbia' - the inland component settled by Serbs (to distinguisgh it from the coastal principalities) - which was a far more easterly lying land c/f today's Serbia, whose northern border lay between the Sava river and Dinaric Alps, to is immediate north amd west were their kin- the Croat tribes.

essentially it describes that what is now Bosnia was, roughly, settled by Serbs in eastern half and Croats western Half

This is confirmed by the catholic encyclopedia which describes that what is now Bosnia was settled by Slavs, ie- Serb and Croat tribes predominantly.

Bosnia started becoming a recognised region from the 10th century onwards. initially it was a province centred on the Bosna river basin (The Balkans: From Communsim to Constantinople. Dennis P Hupchik). It was somewhat of a border region

Its early history is sketchy, but there are a few clues. In the 930s it was part of the new, expanding croat Kingdom, but then occupied by Bulgaria under Simeon. It was freed the confederacy of Serb principalities led By Caslav Klomirinovic (Catholic Encyclopedia) in 950, who died defending the area against Magyar raids. ('The Serbs'. After his death it seceedded from the confederacy and probably divided into smaller statelets, ruled by local nobles, but then may have been briefly under Croatian rule during Kresimir's reign in 990s. It was briefly occupied and ruled by Bulgaria for the 2nd time under Samuil c. 1012. After the fall of Bulgaria in 1018, Byzantines re-asserted their hegemony in the balkans. In 1050s, Duklja's Voislav rulers liberated much of the Serb lands from Byzantines, and emplaced one is his relatives, one Marko as ruler of Bosnia. In 1102 when Croatia was conquered by Hungary, Bosnia too was conquered, and ruled directly by Hungarian prince until 1138, when the Hungarian kind then appointed local Bans- the 1st one we know is Ban Boric. However by 1166 the Byzantines again affirmed their rule, and appointed ban Kulin, who then reneged on his vassalage after Manuel Komnenos died, and went to war against Byzantium, swearing fielty to the Hungarian King, but was essentially an independent player. From here Bosnia's political history is better known.

Map of Europe in 1097, From Shepherds Historical Atlas

As to the Bosnia people- there is no doubt that it was setlled by Serb and Croat tribes, as we have seen. The issue lies in regard to the 'identity' or 'orientation' of the middle age Bosnian banate- was it Serb, Croat or all together its own culture. From the 11th century, it was already forming into a semi-independent province. Serbia was gravitating southward towards the Greek realms, and Croatia was at the mercy of Hungary. John Kinnamos, a chronicler of the 12th century Byzantine-Hungarian conflicts remarked: the Drina river "separates Bosnia from the rest of Serbia", implying that it was originally part of it. But also remarked that "the people of Bosnia are not subject to the Grand Zhupans of Serbia". Religiously, Bosnia was a nominally under sway of Rome, via the archbishopric of Dubrovnik. However, it continued to practice in Slavic liturgy and it had "eastern-type monasticism", It took the name of the "Bosnian church' and was accused of being under the sway of Bogomils. But this was not a deep-rooted religion, and many people were also outright Catholic or Orthodox, each tended to dominate in certain regions of Bosnia "at the relative exclusion of others" ( D Hupchik). This religious division proved stronger than any 'tribal origins' the population may have had centuries earlier. What did the people see themselves as? According to Cirkovic's book, ruler Mateh Nonoslav called his subjects Serbs, whilst Stepjan II (1314-53) called himself Bosniaci who spoke the Serb tongue. I'm sure other people can produce evidence that they saw themselves as Croats, or neither. I;m not trying to prove a any particulr stance. It is clear that it certainly was under the sway of both Croatia and Serbia, although it certainly emerged as a Kingdom in its own rightMalcom's quote is right in the sense that we cannot neatly categorise medieval Bosnia into an ethno-national classification in modern terms, as the difference even between serbs and Croats were negligible back then apart from the obvious religious division, however, i feel that his overall knowledge of the situation is rather poor for a 'Historian'.

Hxseek (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

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

---

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

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

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

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

• Ivan Frano Jukić, excerpt from his work:

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

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

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

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

My recent revert

Sorry Ancient, I reverted your latest edit. Myself, I don't really have a problem with the content of it, but many of the other contributors of this page likely will. Please discuss that huge edit before making it again. Thanks. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosniaks in Turkey

I dont get why my changes keep getting deleted, I mean i could find plenty of sources stating that there is millions of Turks with Bosniak ancestory.

Your change keeps getting reverted because you keep on inserting an extremely inaccurate number + an even more dubious source to go with it. We've all seen these sorts of claims before - some people claim there are 150 - 200 million Irish people in the world just because the Irish have migrated everywhere. Anyway, when you see a number like 9 million for Bosniaks, then you know something is wrong, as most reliable academics all say there are around 2.4 million self identifying Bosniaks in the world. Now, it is possible and likely that some people who live in Turkey nowadays had ancestors who came from Bosnia (they may or may not have been Bosniaks), but these people have long since adopted Turkish culture, language, cuisine, dress etc, so they are not Bosniaks in any way, shape or form. And even if you could count these people (which you cannot as they are not self identifying Bosniaks, and most wouldn't even know about any sort of heritage from Bosnia), there would be nowhere near the amount of them that you keep inserting. First off, you tried to add that in 1991 there were 4 million Bosniaks in Turkey. Then, you tried to add that in 2006 there were 7 million Bosniaks in Turkey. The first figure is extremely inaccurate, and then you go on to claim that within the space of 15 years the population of these non-identifying Bosniaks somehow increased almost twofold. It's ridiculous. The most accurate estimate than can be gathered is that there are around 2.4 million self identifying Bosniaks in the world. All claims that go so far as to say there are 9 million Bosniaks are treated as nationalist myths/propaganda. Please stop trying to insert these pseudo-scientific claims. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see where you're coming from but where did you get that there is 2.4 million Bosniaks in the world? Is that your estimate or what ?Just because they took in Turkish culture, language, cuisine, dress doesn't make them any less Bosniak that's just nonsense, Just because I live in the U.S and have to take in their language,cuisine,dress etc. doesn't in any way mean that I am not a Bosniak anymore.It's nearly impossible to get accurate statistics because of the fact that Bosniaks fleeing to the remnants of the Ottoman Empire were forced to change their last name in order to sound more Turkish -- so it's impossible to trace Bosnian roots through last names.And that is why the two estimates were so far apart.And for the estimate of Bosniaks in the U.S that it ridiculous because In Chicago and St.Louis alone there is around 90,000 Bosniaks, and that's not even counting the amounts throughout the U.S.

A person only belongs to an ethnic group if he self identifies with that group. You cannot claim one person is part of that ethnic group just because his great-great-great-great-great grandfather was one. Like I said, there are crazy numbers like this all over - the best example is the Irish. They are another people who have migrated all over the globe. There are around 80 million Irish people in the world who acknowledge their ancestry and stay true to their heritage (mostly Irish-Americans or even Irish-Australians), but if you count everyone who has one drop of Irish in their blood, then the number could easily go to 200 million or more - however very, very few of these people who actually self-identify as Irish people, and a lot would not even know about or even acknowledge that they have Irish ancestry. Do you see what the point is? Now, of those Turks who have "Bosnian ancestry", what percentage of these Bosnians are even Bosniaks, because as we all know, Bosnians are not only Bosniaks. Even more so, hardly any of them readily self-identify as "Bosniaks" or "Bosnians" at all. So as it stands, from reliable sources that count self identifying Bosniaks, the fact remains that there are around 2.4 million Bosniaks in the world. Number much higher than this are obviously dismissed as false. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well we dont know if there is Bosniaks that self-identify themselves as Bosniaks in Turkey.There hasn't been any polls or anything.Yes the Irish is good example but is a wayy different situation than the one we are discussing.Well 99.8% of Turkey are Muslims, and as you know Bosniaks are mostly Bosnian Muslims so you do the math.And also they broadcast their local channels in Bosnian a couple hours a week, which i doubt they would be doing if they didnt have such a large population.And about the self-identifying problem , we will never know unless they have a poll or something, same things as Serbs and Croats born in Bosnia that deny that they're Bosnian, doesn't mean they're not, they're born there arent't they ?And how is it a FACT that there is 2.4 million when It's an ESTIMATE? An estimate with no proof behind it that is.

Any additions of pseudo-scientific nationalist myths/propaganda will be reverted. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

According to our(Turkish) National Security Concuil there are 2 million Bosniaks in Turkey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.177.166.11 (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's quite interesting to see all countries with a small bosniak population in the box while Turkey is not. I myself was living in a town where there were thousands of bosniaks (who were self describing themself as bosniak). In official censuses, ethnicity is not asked to people but it doesn't mean that 100% of people living in Turkey are ethnically Turks. At least the data of Bosniak version of this page can be given here which is 27.000.Baloglu (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Most, if not all of the sources for the 2 million figure are Turkish news articles and other Turkish publications. Non-Turkish sources seem to give numbers much lower than that, so let's list both per Iraqi Turkmen. It doesn't matter which figure is "right" or not, what maters is whether information can be backed up with reliable sources. I've cited a book that says 350,000. Khoikhoi 02:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Josip Broz Tito

This article doesn't mention Tito, the man who invented this nation through a predecessor name: Muslimani —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.238.16 (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The article also doesnt mention Njegos who invented so called "Serb" nation. 24.82.181.243 (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am bosniak ,and I will count how many bosniaks are in bosnia,serbia,croatia.......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinc (talk • contribs) 15:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

my friend you lie there are around 6 million self-identifying bosniaks in turkey...

but its hard to tell the truth i know ;) you would be happy if we only were 2.4 million people haha only in bosnia and sandzak together we are 2.4 million now add turkey west europe USA... we are around 6-8 millions bosniaks my friend. sorry for my bad english im from germany but i will return to my roots ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarayyy (talk • contribs) 00:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's hard to tell the truth, Seb lies have shed doubt on anything related to Balcans in general, now anybody who wants to find out anything about Balcans thinks they have to do it via DNA Haplogroup techniques and their own personal Archeology. Both of these things confirm that Bosniaks are unique tribe that didn't mix with Slavs which is an amazing contradiction to the Serb version of events. And by the way, Why did Austro-Hungary recognise Bosnia if Tito created Bosnia? 91.191.3.222 (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Serbian and Croatian origin of Bosniaks

We cannot outrule the fact that many Bosniaks are in fact Serbs and Croats who were converted to Islam (Islamification; forcefully), in Bosnia, Sandzak and Kosovo. As the Bosniaks of Sandzak and Kosovo (Gorani) has nothing to do with the region of Bosnia. for example: Pomaks are Bulgarian Muslims, of Bulgarian ethnic origin and Muslim faith. Gorani are Serbs/Slavic Muslims, of Serbian ethnic origin and Muslim faith. The fact that the Muslims of Kosovo and Sandzak preserve not only traditional and ethnic serb customs, they have also preserved Serbian surnames, older than the Bosnia(n/k) nationality/ethnicity. "Bosnian" was a regional affiliation in the medieval Balkans, so the people of Bosnia were christian Serbs (orthodox) and Croats (catholic), and a very very small fraction of Bogomils (what was the ethnic origin of Bogomils? thats right, its a religion, not a ethnicity).

/User:nexm0d

Yes. Well, as stated they were Slavs for sure, surrounded by lands known to be inhabited by Serbs and Croats, so they were certainly, at least in part, derived from Serbs and Croats. We cannot deny this. There was no tribe called Bosniaks in the 700s. No other Slavic tribes is mentoned in the area either. The Byzantines had good knowledged of the many Slavic tribes-the Sclavinias. Constantine porphyrogenitus essentially describes that what is now Bosnia was settled by Serbs and Croats. Understandibly, our Bosnian wikipedia colleagues are a bit touchy about being called the descendents of Serbs or Croats. However, we must delineate the difference between modern Serbs and Croats (who are the final result of fusion of many different peoples) compared to the original Serb and Croat tribes or clans who were just two amongst many tribes composed of very similar Slavic peoples. Eg modern Serbs ancestors are the Serb, Braniches, Abordrites, Timochans, Moravjans Slavs; as well as Romans and Vlachs.

The core territory of Serb and Croat tribes/ clans was in (what is now) southwestern Serbia and northern Dalmatia, respectively. They ruled over the Slavs in Bosnia from 800s to 1100s. Because they were the most powerful clans, they assimilated other SLavs into their tribal name. Bosnia was right in the middle of the two. Archeological culture shows that definitely western part (half) was part of the Croats. The south-eastern part was associated with Serb settlements. We have to be objective, put national pride aside and admit this . Yet, an independent Bosnian Kingdom did arise, and there is some (very small) evidence that the Kings called their people "Bosnjanci". However, the separateness of Bosniaks was only cemented when they converted to Islam. Later in the late 19th early 20th century, Austria pushed the notion of the existence of a separate Bosnian "ethnicity" to curb the rising Pan-Slavic movement in the Balkans by placing ideological seeds of separatness into the minds of the South Slavs. Hxseek (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: The idea that the conversions were forced has been recently been challenged. Peculiar to Bosnia (and ALbania), many of the local regional nobles converted for pragmatic reasons. Whilst the large majority of Serbs, Croats, Greeks, Bulgarians etc remained Christians, the 'Bosnians' had no qualms about renouncing Christianity in order to get tax benefits . By becoming muslim, they were allowed to gain a position in the Turkish Islamic heirarchy. THe peasents under the rule of these converted local nobles also converted to Islam. As pointed out in the article, Bosnia was already segragated between factioning nobles, and no one form of Christianity predominated and became deeply rooted. So it was no big step for one noble to turn to Islam to increase his power compared to his adjacent rival.

---

I think that this article should contain notion that Bosniaks are (partly) of Serb origin due of islamisation during centuries of Ottoman ruling. This is historical fact. This is what Bosniaks hardly accepting or entirely deny. Some modern example is Emir Kusturica who completely accepting that he is actually Serb.

Currently I found in article only fact that some surnames are detent.

--Čikić Dragan (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a stupid comment Bosniaks are more Croat then Serb because the people of that converted were Croats + the slaves that were brought from Croatia trough their constant robberies. About Emil Kusturica a.k.a Nemanja Kusturica i can say that he betrayed his people (Bosniaks muslims) and degraded himself to Serbian ethnicity i don't know why he would do such a silly thing maybe his ancestors were really serbs but you can't say because of one convert that all bosniak muslims are serbs. So could I say for Darijo Srna that his father was a Muslim and he converted to catholic religion and he thinks of himself as a croat. Can i now say that all bosniak muslims are croats because of Srna? NO i can't because Bosniaks are a mixture of Croats and Serbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carib canibal (talk • contribs) 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys are forgetting (through your wish that Servs and Horvaths were not different types of slaves) the fact that pre-Slavic tribes existed, and that Bosniaks are deemed neolithic pre-Slavic people who came from the area around the river Bosna. Remember Bosna is a river whos name originates in Illyrian times and we all know that Bosanci are named after that river, do we not? So don't be jealous and desperate. Anyways, read this: http://www.geocities.com/famous_bosniaks/bosanski_jezik.html , Bosnian language existed before Serb or Croatian in any case. So all the anti-Bosniak stuff derives from jealousy and mizery of Slaves(Servs) of Balcans. 91.191.3.222 (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your source says that Western Cyrrilic script "Bosančica" was used in 13th century, but it doesn't mention that this script was called "Hrvaštica" by its writers in 13th century and that the same script was used by Croatian nobility in Croatia in the same time. Bosančica was Serbian name of that script in later stages. Your source doesn't mention relations between Bogumils and Aryan Christianity brought by the Goths to Croatia and B&H. Your Slavs - slaves connection says a lot about you, your knowledge and your position in discussion. Etc... Zenanarh (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In the talk pages for many different articles, posts that contain inflammatory remarks and hate speech are usually deleted within a few weeks by some admin. I find it a bit unnerving that the posts above are just allowed to stay there. There is nothing constructive in the dialogue there - just some Trolls getting off on people's responses to them... Please remove these unconsructive and hateful comments. XJeanLuc (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally with XJeanLuc. There is no evidence that Serbs even existed 100 years ago, as every atlas from that time describes them as Servs (servants). If we were to follow the trolls pattern of thought where people are as old as their name then we would need to state that Serbs are not older than modern North Americans. Bosniak Atheist (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Dubious edits

Someone has made some historically incorrect statements like Bosnia became a kingdom in 11th century, quoting Malcolm. There is so wrong. They have either mis-quoted him, or Malcolm is blatantly wrong and an incapable historian who should not be used as a source. Hxseek (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea but Malcolm is not considered incapable by civilised world such as Great Britain. They assigned him as the main historian on the Balcans issues. Hense the Western media only ever quotes him in their reports. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

who says that we have that origin must be crazy! the bosnian croats and serbs were bosnian but catholic and orthodox ... we were bugumil bosnians. when we became muslims because we didnt want to be christians we had the power in bosnia and the bosnian christians wanted to split from us because they started to hate us. why they became cath. and orth. ? because of the chritian wars. many bugumils were killed for being bugumils so they became muslims. easy ah?

sry f bad english : germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarayyy (talk • contribs) 00:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nature of -iak/-yak suffix

There is a paragraph in the article as it stands that suggests that the move from the -nin suffix to the -iak suffix was somehow the result of linguistic "Turkification". As a speaker of a variety of Turkic languages I can assure you that -yak does not appear as a normal Turkic ethnonymic suffix. The typical form in Turkic languages is -lIQ or -lI, as for example in "Arnavutlu" ('Albanian'). The -yak suffix I have encountered in various Slavic languages, principally Russian, as for example "Permyak" or "Murmanyak", also compare Polish "Polak"; however I hesitate to make comparisons in that case as I know next to nothing about Slavic languages. 128.101.230.62 (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Overview section, the Genetics need rewording to reflect findings

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/10/1964#TBL1 It is new GENETIC analysis which happens to prove that only Bosniaks are indigenous Europeans in X-Yugoslavia region. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

From these studies Bosniak's and Herzegovians have 64% I1b haplogroup which is found almost exclusively inside Bosniak areas and diminishes as can be seen as you enter the neighbouring boarders (Croatia and Serbia). Important to note: this haplogroup is impossible to assign to Slavic settlers. However the genetic favour in this article in the 'Overview' section is incorrectly weighing toward the so called Slavic genetic heritage.. when these studies prove the reverse. Remember that we are talking about genetics here, and not Point of view. So it will look silly and more and more people will see inconsistancies if the studies say one thing and the interpretation the reverse. I think we have to reflect the studies in the Overview section for starters. Rewording is needed to weigh toward the Indiginous European gene pool of the Balcans region first then others (Goth, Celt) and lastly Slavic because it is simply too obvious and clear that, that is the case in the Oxford studies. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, see the thing is, the study say Bosnians and Herzegovinans, not Bosniaks; which means that this study not only applies to Bosniaks, but to Croats and Serbs and others who inhabit the Bosnia region.

You forgot to remember that Bosniaks are also Bosnian hense, the studie which found that they have almost no Slavic genetic signature applies to them too.

Actually, no, I didn't forget - notice how I said "this study not only applies to Bosniaks, but to Croats and Serbs and others who inhabit the Bosnia region". So yeah, my point remains valid that Bosniaks are not any more or any less Slavs than Croats, Serbs and other Balkan people. 121.222.199.140 (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Another point is, you keep changing "Bosniaks are Slavic" to "Bosniaks are Slavic speakers" - the problem with this is that it appears to be written in such a way to suggest that Bosniaks are somehow "superior" to Slavs. Also, strictly speaking, ethnicity is not about genetics, rather it is about culture and language, so Bosniaks, as speakers of Slavic languages and having Slavic culture, are Slavs and not just Slav "speakers". 121.222.199.140 (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why cry wolf on "Slav's vs Other's" when in reality WW2 is over and most people actually don't think Slav's are inferior. Secondly it is rather imprecise to say Bosniaks have Slavic culture, as they actually have more Turkish/Other culture than "Slavic culture". 77.78.199.117 (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, Bosniaks culture is more Slavic than Islamic - language, cuisine, dress, architecture - all Slavic. It is quite erroneous to suggest Bosniaks are anything other than Slavs, so no, the article will continue to state that fact.

That sounds rather nasty, you seem to be equating Islamic culture to Turkish culture (Belly dancing, Shish kebab, Baklawa and so on). It doesn't seem like you have the winning argument here. Bosnian capital is almost exclusively Turkish and Austrian architecture, And all the Turkish quisine like Baklawa and so on, all internationally recognised. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Apart from this, your only other addition to the article was that External link to that Oxford study - and if you'll notice, that link is still in the external link section, so I don't see any reason for this to continue as it seems to be resolved; that is, your link is there, and Bosniaks are without a doubt, Slavs. 121.222.199.140 (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks wise to leave the link in there, although I wouldn't be surprised if somebody removes it, due to so much of this article being POW driven. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, we need some non-serb/non-bosniak/non-croat points of view here, no anon users etc. to inject some oppinions. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'm not serb, bosniak nor croat and I'm not anonymous. I should be precisely the person you want, and I'll tell you right away that you're wrong. The source says nothing even close to what you are claiming. Apart from being old, it only talks about Bosnians, not Bosniaks. And it doesn't say anything about other Balkan peoples being recent newcomers from Asia, that's entirely your own invention. Take this from a neutral editor on Balkan-subjects, you are clearly in the wrong here and your edits are original research. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just read above in that case instead of just saying "you're wrong", you seem to be very emotionally charged for a "neutral". By the way: dismissing Oxford university research as "Old" is rather POW driven as it wasn't changed by that University. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Two comments. Oxford is of course a reliable source, but the field of genetics have made enormous progress during the last 40(!) years. And once again, the research their says nothing about "Bosniaks" at all, and it doesn't make any claim about any people being the original inhabitangs. Both of those are your own interpretations. There's nothing emotional in that, just a scientific comment. JdeJ (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember Bosniaks are Bosnians. And it does highlight I1b haplogroup, read above. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely true. And remember that Serbs are Bosnians and that Croats are Bosnians. At the time the research for that study was carried out, Bosniaks made up around 35% of the Bosnian population and Bosnian Serbs were the largest group. So it would be at least as right (or wrong) to say that Bosnian Serbs are the original people of the Balkans. JdeJ (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that's why somebody will need to revise Bosnian Serb/Croat sections too when talking about origins and genetic origins. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been quiet for a 'long' time, I am going to assume therefore my argument prevailed. ??? WTF, some of us actually DO have better things to do than edit Wikipedia.

So, it seems the general consensus is against you, it also seems you are unwilling to listen or to compromise, it does seem you are xenophobic, and furthermore, you cannot even interpret sources correctly. Basically the article will stay the same, but with your external link to Oxford remaining. I don't think that's at all unreasonable. 121.222.199.140 (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok master and owner of Wikipedia, I hope your chatroom aggression doesn't prevail, against Oxford University. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey listen buddy, you do not control Wikipedia, and the way this site works is you need a C-O-N-S-E-N-S-U-S to make radical (and wrong) changes like that. That is why YOU must "win" before your version can stay, and that is why, I, must revert you, and must keep reverting you until people here agree with you - which they don't. 121.222.161.213 (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

With that comment you are braking even more rules.. Why bother reverting what I proved the more reflecting to genetic findings? It doesn't diminish the Slavic influence at all even. Secondly don't be so emotional and aggressive. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would encourage less emotional outburts by all parties. User 121.222.161.213 is, however, completely right. If there's any consensus at the moment, it's against user 77.78.199.117. I would especially like to point out that the source from Oxford does not support what it has been claimed to support. It says nothing about Bosniaks at all (nothing more than about Bosnian Serbs or Bosnian Croats) and it says nothing about any people being the first inhabitants. Having a source is a good start, but we should never start to interpret sources. JdeJ (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you not notice that none of my proposed wording mentions anything about first inhabitants of Bosniaks vs others? I fixed that part long time ago. Bosniaks are Bosnians which you agreed on already, that means they are by default included in the findings. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

STOP now both of you! Refrain from reverting anymore, as it is quite obstructive, and you are both far beyond WP:3RR. Both of you are in violation of WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:TALK. I have filed a request that this page be protected so none of you can edit it for a while.

On topic now, this has been done countless times before, and all times it has been rebuked as false.

Bosniaks are South Slavs, plain and simple. Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs ALL are descendants of indigenous Balkan people and of Slav settlers. And to try to cut out the fact that they are Slav IS provocation, IS xenophobic, IS against the consensus, and most importantly, IS wrong.

I've had enough of these pseudo-scientific claims such as "Bosniaks aren't Slavs, they are Blond haired Aryans" or "Serbs are Asians". Stop this nonsense now, because it will never be accepted, because it is false.

Deal with it. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Frvernchanezzz : We cannot have so many genetic studies saying that Bosniaks have almost no Slavic genetic background and have all of the genetic wording claim primarily that Bosniaks have Slavic genetic background constantly, soon it will start looking too obvious. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop reverting please. The consensus is against you - that means until you gains support, you must not add that content. Furthermore, you have reverted about 9 times now - the Wikipedia rule is no more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, so you must stop. And changing it to say "a lesser extent Slav" is just as bad as what you were doing before. You have been warned on your talk page and here not to engage in revert wars, so please stop. Thanks. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that all these users who participated have the same gramatical pattern, so I don't think a consensus is in question, more likely abuse of Wikipedia. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple of observations:

1. the Oxford Journal on Molecular Biology and Evolution (2005) actually (1) does not talk about Bosniaks (only Bosnians) and (2) does not draw the conclusion that Bosniaks/Bosnians arrived before other Slavs. That is complete WP:OR. Please read the article's Conclusion. One should always be careful when interpreting primary sources/research.
2. all other reliable sources describe Bosniaks as South Slavic, hence Wikipedia should as well.
3. issues of biology/race and ethnicity/culture are difficult. Bulgarians are described as "South Slavic" although they are largely Turkic in origin and Polish people are described as "Western Slavic" although they certainly have many other "genetic" origins. Heck, the Croats and Serbs supposedly derive their names/origins from Iranian tribes. Basically, I believe we should stick to the common version here and leave the OR out.

RegardsOsli73 (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about Genetic origins in the Overview section which seem to contradict Oxford university findings about the I1b haplogroup in the Balcans region, specifically Bosnia where Bosniaks live. Because we know the genetic reality, there will inevitably be more genetic sources confirming each other, so it will be increasingly incoherent to Mention "Slavic mixture" first when it is the last in all "so far" genetic studies sources. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

However, the war is already lost by the Serb side where this subject at least now is open to people, as oposed to before where everybody was sure Sers/Croats/Bosnians were the same, with Religion being the only difference. We see the results of this where Serbs lost Kosovo as a result of everybody having access to not only Serb interpretation of history. Also because of the Balcans region being highlighted, people have studied everything related to that region and even analysed genetic origins of each side which already destroyed the Serb/Russian favoured arguments. The main question is, will we ever see a Serb favoured decision being made by Big powers again? It looks very unlikely due to dissrespect thrown by the Serb side of major historians and interests of Europe, in energy and so on. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Due to edit warring by IPs I've semi-protected this page for three days. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The facts as I know them

(1) The Bosniaks are Muslims by religion,
(2) Slavs by custom and tradition, and
(3) Illyrians by genome.

They are not one or the other; they are all three at once. What's more, they are different from the Serbs only in their religion. No matter what you call the Bosniaks, you cannot separate them from the Serbs ethnically or genetically.

But besides all that, genetics is a petty and trivial argument; the genetic composition of Europe fluctuates so much that it wouldn't be possible to say who came from where even if we wanted to. So the Bosniaks don't look like Russians; maybe by the intercession of the Turks whom they married from time to time they aren't even don't even look like Serbs (though God knows the Bosniaks are startled when one miscalls them Turks). All this ought to be remarked, but if you remark it in the introduction it is in bad taste and wrong, because you are rewriting history without any authority. --VKokielov (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Great set of POW comments by VKokielov. However, lets get back to non-Serb/non-Russian (factual) reality.

1) Bosniaks have every single Turkish quisine and cultural dance, and tradition, and therefore do not have Slavic culture.

2) Bosnia has 90% + Turkish/Austrian architecture. We know this where every Bosnian town has a 'Charshia' which is exclusively of Turkish engineering and planning.

3) Bosniaks have almost exclusively indigenous European genetic roots, and seem to be absolutely unrelated to Slavic genetic roots and the oposite is implied by this article.

4) Time is not in the favour of lies, they will start conflicting with other subjects sooner and later.

77.78.199.117 (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you insult me, I will not come back, and you will lose prestige by it. --VKokielov (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what the **** you are. Prvo ti nauci ruski, a poslije cemo ti i ja raspravljati o tome kakvo mi je glediste i odkud potice. Jebate odkud vama to? Zbog toga sto Putin je budala? Pa, jeste, budala je. Nije ni upola takva budala kakvi znaju biti vasi politici. Oni isti koji, umjesto raditi svoj posao, peru tebi glavu kako bi ti isao na Wikipediju gurati svoje glediste.

I ja mogu biti ostar. --VKokielov (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nema me vise ovđe, pričajte šta hoćete. --VKokielov (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation: Learn Russian first, and then you and I will talk about where my point of view comes from. Where the hell do you get that from? Because Putin is an idiot? Yes, he is an idiot, but not as much an idiot as your politicians are on occasion. The same politicians who brainwash you into pushing your agenda on Wikipedia instead of doing their jobs. I can be harsh, too. // I'm gone, do what you please. --VKokielov (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why can the Croats do it? Why can they give up their ecological zone for membership in the EU? Are they superhuman, or particularly advanced? No; they have understood that propaganda programs tend to usurp money from roads, schools, and hospitals... --VKokielov (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you on drugs? 77.78.199.117 (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes! How did you guess? --VKokielov (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

VKokielov is right, the Bosniaks are Slavs, mainly of Serbian, Croatian and/or Albanian origin, however, have intermarried, so Bosniaks also seem to have Turkish roots as well. Bosniaks ARE NOT Turks, Bosniaks only adopted several Turkish traditions, but still retain the old Slavic traditions, as well as several Albanian tradition. --Prevalis (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This could all be true if we ignored the genetic analysis and agreed that myths were actually true. It is amazing how the "Civilised" world has taken away Kosovo from the grip of Serbs on that basis and has started to arm them. I do however propose that Wikipedia is not a place for myths. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I will say what I said on hr:wiki. If you don't want to be a Slav, then quit talking a Slavic language. What? It's an insult to you, is it?

It's despicable. The Russians are a superpower, like the Americans -- in their politics. In their culture they are on par with Europe. It is an insult to us when you snub your lip at us. You know, I'm a Jew; if I started to rail at the Russians for everything they did to the Jews I would go on through the night. But that doesn't hinder me, who am three quarters of a Jew, or my father, who is pure-blooded, from speaking Russian and admiring Leo Tolstoy. And I have never been stirred to stick my nose up at the Russians because of it. --VKokielov (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What drugs? 77.78.199.117 (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You insulted me, I insulted you back. oko za oko --VKokielov (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The subject now is the type of drugs you're on. Not whether I've insulted you, as I obviously didn't. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record

It will be noticed that the argument here is not mainly about a genetic study, which proves God knows what, but about the definition of the word "Slav." Our adversary here claims that "Slav" is a designation of identity -- and a particular kind of identity: genetic identity. This is utter nonsense. According to this theory, the French are really Germans (Charlemagne and the Franks), the English are really Welsh and British, not to mention Scandinavian, and the Russians are Finns.

The proper definition for the ethnonym "Slav" is, in fact, ethnic and linguistic. If you would like me to show you an old source proving it -- I will do it without any trouble, and it will be a reputable source, too. --VKokielov (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Although you have admited to be on drugs, I'll still talk to you in hope that you calm down and stop acting in such a emotional manner.

I have just proved to you that culturally Bosniaks fail the mentioned Slavic culture test, via Baklawa, Burek, Bas-Carsia, Austrian architecture, Kebab, Belly-dancing, Turkish style music, Turkish traditional dance and morals and the list goes on for ever. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And we have proved to you that your argument does not stand, because you are NOT DEFINING what it means to be a Slav, and without that definition there is no debate. Please define "Slav" as you perceive it, and then give me a source for that definition. --VKokielov (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read above, then you will see that there is not a single aspect of the Slavic definition under which Bosniaks can be assigned the label "Slav" apart from language, even that is vague as Bosniaks have a huge number of Italian + Turkish words, such as Babo which is an old Roman word for father and so on.

Say, do you know what Spanish and Portuguese America is called? But why is it called that? Do the Mexicans, Argentinians, or Brazilians have anything in common with the Romans? Nothing -- nothing save the language.

There is an established habit of making the categories "speakers of Slavic languages" and "Slavs" equal. There is a reason for this. The affinity of the languages plays a part, but it is not the determining factor. The determining factor is that "Slav" is what we call an "umbrella term" -- a vague word. It is a name which reflects vaguely the origin of your language (which will allow you to out-learn, say, a Frenchman or an Arab in Russian no matter what your respective talents for languages are) and more concretely the fact that you speak it. It does not imply that you belong to any religion or nation. The Irish and Scots would be insulted if I confused them, and yet all the same they are Celts, one and the other. --VKokielov (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I am interested in exchanging opinions with a "drug-lord" at the moment, I'll call it a day. 77.78.199.117 (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nor am I interested in wrangling with you, who are childish and impolite. I have laid out my portion; whoever wants to take it into account can do so. --VKokielov (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bosniaks = Illyrians or Slavs

Just want to add my suggestion, as i am very interested in south slavs ethnology and early history. To state my "alliegence": my parents are Yugoslavs, but i was born in Australia, and am Australian (but mindful of my heritage). I harbour only warmth for all ex-Yugoslavs, but am sick of nationalists who try to spread total and utter bullshit. It is insulting to the rest of us.

People like "ancient land of Bosna" and other nationalists actually think they can come here and write fiction and think they can convince the learned community of their views (more like, wishes). Unfortunately, with all the hatred that is obviously still around, we have seen people attempting to create their own ancestry. Bosniaks, in this case, and lesser extent Croats, attempt to downplay their Slavic roots- referring to it as the dogma of Pan-Slavic communism. They distance themselves from it because of the Russo-Serb alliance, and the Orthodox Christianity that many Slavs are part of.

Bosnians (incl Bosniaks), Croats, Serbs, Montenegrins, Dalmatians, Hercegovinans, and every other "ethnic" group you want to come up with are all derived from the one people: that is, the western portion of South Slavs. In the 700s, the SLavs came from Ukraine, Carpathia, etc and settled the Balkans. There were some Illyrians left, yes, but they were absorbed by the Slavs, and took on their language and cultures (probably bi-directional). Yes, some scholars theorize, that some places like Montenegro and Bosnia may have retained a higher number of Illyrians, because they were mountainous regions. But the final result is the same. THe fusion produced south slavs. Since 700, they spoke nearly identical language. So if the Bosnians have 64% of haplogroup I compared to 40 % in Serbs- what does this mean ?? Is this a significant diference.? WHo says that haplogroup I even represents "illyrian ancestry". We cannot jump to conclusions.

The Illyrian people were absorbed by the Slavs. The slavs could have even been numerically inferior, but they Slavicized the Balkans. I do not think that the Slavs were even genetically homogenous to begin with. Ethnicity moves about, it is gained and lost by cultural, linguistic and military contact. There is no reason to beleive that Bosniaks for some reason have an ancestry that is special and distinct from their next door neighbours.

The Balkans Slavs remained separated as individual tribes. No unified state was achieved. Therefore they were easily dominated by different culture: Franks and Rome in the northwest vs Bulgaria and Byzantine in the southeast. This caused different religious orientation and and different political histories. From this 1400 years of differing development, the different constituent south slavic peoples arose. But they all emerged from the same melting pot of people.

The issue is Bosniaks "roots" are less stablished. We cannot deny that, prior to 1100s, the region of Bosnia was ruled Serb and Croat nobles a lot of the time. THe early Slavic states were very volatile (in fact, they still are today). One year Serbia is somehwat of a power, then it collapses and separates into individual provinces. THen Croatia would rise, only to go into civil war after the King dies. This was the entire pattern of history from 800-1100. So at times, Serbian princes ruled over many areas, including Bosnia. Thus there subjects (who were all a very similar people), were called Serbs. Whereas the same poeple 50 years later would be Croats because they were subject to the Craot king. Some form of Bosnian statehood occurred later, from 1180. THis is when the term Bosniak arose- the people ruled by the ban of Bosnia.

Today's Bosniaks (ie Bosnian Muslims) are the ones whose ancestors converted to Islam from the 1500s onwards. This is when they formed as a distinct culturo-religious group. Undesrtabdibly, Bosnian Serbs and Craots feel that they have monopolised the name, since it originally referred to the people of the medieval, christian state of Bosnia- not Muslim Slavs which did not exist at the time.

Although being muslim certainly imparts a cutural influence, we cannot say that Bosniaks are Turkish, even if there was interbreeding. THe numbers of Turks that would have had to settle in Bosnia to actually alter the gene pool would be in the millions. For all the differences in religion and history, South Slavs are all still are very similar.

Oh yeah- finally: they have Austrian architecture in Sarajevo ?? Please. So what does that have to do with anything !

Hxseek (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the above. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well written Hxseek! Even more, I'm not even sure I agree that the people living in the medieval Balkan states should/could be termed "Serbs", "Croats" or "Bosniaks"/"Bosnians" in the modern sense of the word. I think we too willingly accept modern states/nationalities exaggerated appropriation of distant historical states/peoples as their own in the interest of legitimacy and status. There is never a straight line betweeen a modern and historical peoples or nations. This is equally true of western as well as eastern Europe. It is just seems to be at its most extreme in the western and southern Balkans. CheersOsli73 (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but Hxseek, Osli73, Frvernchanezzz and some others are all one user, as can be clearly seen by the writing pattern. It's easy to fool Wikipedia of course, all you need is 3 ip's 3 emails and a header+cookie knowledge. Of course as soon as I get some spare time, I can easily surpas that by a factor of 100 or 1000 it doesn't matter. 77.78.197.84 (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Or in Greece. (Imagine a smug grin on my face). --VKokielov (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hxseek: If your Slavic sequence of events was right, then why do Bosniaks have so clearly almost no Slavic genetic pattern? New technology can/has/will expose any lies. Serbs have to stop living in the world of historical myths so famously highlighted by western media on the Kosovo separation issue. 77.78.197.84 (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally, Bosniaks are more different genetically to Slavs than Greeks or Bulgarians or Serbs are to Turks, yet we say that Greeks are not Turks and Bosniaks are Slavs even if Bosniaks have every single Turkish custom and cultural pattern including only Turkish quisine for example. After all this can be seen by every foreighn dignitary in Bosnia, they don't need Wikipedia for that. Secondly, lets put together cultural markers which assign people to a culture, to see if Bosniaks have Slavic or non-Slavic culture.. 77.78.197.84 (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear anon, please read WP:OR. Basically, Wikipedia should report the commonly held view, we should not engage in original research, try to interpret original research or present fringe views as anything but. To be frank, I believe you are engaging in all of these. It's going nowhere. However, if you could present sources such as books, peer reviewed articles or other encyclopedias which present Bosniaks as non-Slavic, then that would be a different matter. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Cultural and Ethnic markers, such as cuisine to decipher what culture/ethnic group Bosniaks belong to

1) Cuisine - Cuisine_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.

It seems basically Turkish, end of that subject. 77.78.197.84 (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

2) Architecture. Architecture_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

It is also illuminated here what kind of architecture Bosnia has. http://fp.arizona.edu/mesassoc/Bulletin/bosnia.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mostar#Gallery <<<<<<<<< This to me does not look Slavic at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.198.147 (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

3) Language. Bosnian_language

I say Bosnian language is only around half Slavic, I'll go look for evidence if anybody disagrees. But remember language cannot be the only factor in cultural or ethnic conclusion due to other cases in the world such as Native Americans who speak English and the list goes on endlessly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.197.84 (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

4) Religous behaviour (for example Serb Orthodox may behave differently in their religous expression to some other Orthodox groups)
5) Genetics. (The thing that is the least capable of lies and POW)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I1b_(Y-DNA) <<< just read this, you will find out the truth, and look at the oxford uni images of that haplogroup, how it dramatically and surely drops as you move from bosniak areas. and another rock solid source confirms it here http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1181996 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.198.147 (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

6)

Lets make a big list here...(remember no side in reality has anything to lose by ACTUALLY getting to the truth here)
Remember to leave emotions out of this, as this is here to help us solve the conundrum, and stop the eternal arguing, if you change your mind about something, it is not a bad thing, but it more a brave thing. Also nobody will read your entire story if it's oversized, please make it simple, short and easy to read, the longer it is the more it looks false, as reality is usually very short and simple.

77.78.197.84 (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, please see my latest commment above about WP:OR. You're barking up the wrong tree.Osli73 (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's bring some Original Research in then, this is a perfect chance. I have tons about Cuisine to start with. 77.78.197.84 (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon, you have apparently misunderstood Wiki policy about original research. Please do read WP:OR and you will understand why your methodology/argumentation is not valid.Osli73 (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, as per WP:OR : "Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas;" However, my research is published and accepted, if you look at just the Wiki sections which mention Where each aspect of Bosniak culture/ethnicity comes from. 77.78.197.84 (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon:

1. pulling together your own evidence from "cuisine" and "architecture" and what not and drawing your own conclusions from that to prove ethnicity, is WP:OR
2. drawing your own conclusions from published sources, is WP:OR

Again, what you need are published sources supporting your claims, not sources which you interpret at supporting your claims. That is a crucial difference. As far as I can see, the Oxford Uni paper you refer to does not anywhere draw the conclusions you are making. Your interpretation of the findings of that paper is what constitutes WP:OR. CheersOsli73 (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

a) I don't understand why you are resourting to mythical interpretation of what I typed. I was clearly pointing out that Wikipedia already has consensus that Bosniak cuisine is closely linked to Turkish cuisine, which happens to be 100% reality and not a myth. If you want I'll look around for some cuisine books that confirm it too. b) I don't understand where the myth is when it clearly points out that Bosniaks (People who live inside Bosnian Boarders) have 64% of the genetic signature that is accepted in the Anthropological world to be unique to indiginous Balcans (European) people and the rest from Celts and Goths, there is no space for myth here unfortunately for Osli73. The great thing is somebody very close to me is in the final year of PhD which involves extensive work on gentic studies, and confirms this, the more you dismiss stuff you need to study for 8 years before you are qualified to dismiss it, the more people will ignore you in the future. 77.78.197.84 (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, although I suspect it is waste, I will explain why what you are doing is original research and not acceptable here. You have to find a reputable source which actually states that Bosniaks are not Slavs (or whatever it is you are suggesting). It is not sufficient to find evidence which you (through some kind of triangulation) interpret as evidence that Bosniaks are not Slavs. You cannot interpret evidence presented in an academic paper as evidence that Bosniaks are not (or only part) Slavs. You cannot draw your own conclusion from the fact that Bosniak cuisine apparently more Turkish than 'Slavic' etc.Osli73 (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't obviously draw a conclusion from one part, since you turned the "Slavic" concept into a myth, I challenged you to come up with all the things you can think of which might make a nation "Slavic". Via another nickname, you came up with Cuisine, and I obviously simply pointed you to a Wikipedia article which admits that Bosniak cuisine is closely linked with Turkish cuisine. It is unfortunate that old Yugoslavia was taken seriously once upon a time, and their interpretation of history still remain, for example some reputable sources still think that Muslims are an ethnic group in Balcans, which is like saying that Russians are a religion just because Yeltsin said it to be. Of course things are changing, so.. one day Tito and Yugoslavia will be considered absolute liars instead of just partial liars and fascists. However as we know fortunately one positive thing about the 1992 war was that the world has studied this region and obviously that includes ignoring everyones interpretation of history and going for genetic evidence since everyone obviously will simply lie, hence we see Kosovo separation, and failure of great serbia project. 77.78.197.84 (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So according to Mr Anon, I am Chinese because I eat chinese food. OK. Hxseek (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that's my point, You're not Slavic if you only eat Pig meat and suffer a heart attack before the age of 50. Which is what Osli73 seem's to have suggested when he found Cuisine as a cultural marker 77.78.198.147 (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough of your rabble and pseudo-science. Hxseek (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We have to remove POW in genetic related texts here is what the world accepted view is: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1181996 note "It reaches its highest incidences in Croatia (31%) and Bosnia (40%), encompassing almost 80%–90% of I (table 1). In western Europe". 77.78.198.115 (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Genetics

Everybody in the Anthropological world accepts that http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/R1a_large_RG.jpg is the haplogroup associated with Slavs, yet it is non-existant in Bosniaks, as can be seen there. So why mention 'Slav' when talking about Bosniak genetic roots? Bosniaks have the totally unrelated haplogroup http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/I1b_large_RG.jpg which is more related to British, Germans, Swedes than Slavs as all three peoples have the haplogroup I (I1a, I1b, I1c). This is not Original Research, this is accepted in all Genetic articles as you can see in the images. 77.78.198.115 (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User Academic_Challenger, has suggested that pubmed a .gov scientific database PubMedCentral is not a trusted source and that I cannot use their quote. Academic_Challenger explain please in detail. 77.78.198.115 (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I should have been more clear in my comment in the page history. It is a trusted source, but it seems to be contradicted by a reference that is already there. We need more talk page discussion to determine if such a major change like you are making should be implemented. Academic Challenger (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Which reference contradicts it?, why can't we use Pubmed's quote? I'll be back tomorrow, please provide as much detail as possible using your apparent knowledge which says that R (Slavic) haplogroup family is the same as I (Bosniak, German, Swedish) haplogroup family 77.78.198.115 (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about the Coon book and the Marjanovic article. I am not an expert on ethnic studies so I could be misinterpreting it, but if they actually agree with each other, the PubMed quote is not needed since it just makes the article more confusing. Academic Challenger (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, you have missinterpreted it, just press ctrl+f and look for word Slav in the Marjanovic article to make it short for you. You won't find it, as pubmed and marjanovic agree. Also marjanovic article is less extensive studie as you can see while pubmed is used by most other genetic articles on Wikipedia. 77.78.198.115 (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding Genetics section

I am thinking about adding a genetics part in the Bosniaks article, the thing is to copy paste article from one of the sources. Any complaints? 77.78.199.162 (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets also add a few images too, to make it colourful, I'll sort it out soon. Noonien Soong (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, please be advised that the genetics part which you are most likely seeking to introduce is not supported by the other editors. If you are planning on introducing any genetics part, please discuss and seek support for it here. CheersOsli73 (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There isn't anything wrong with enriching this Article with the Genetic section, while less people will have something to fight about if the text is simply pasted in. 91.191.3.222 (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC

A genetics section actually used to exist - here and on other ethnic group articles - but most were removed because the consensus generally was that they weren't very useful, they always were written with a POV, and they generally attracted trolls and edit wars. 121.223.98.85 (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but we won't use POW, we will simply use a reliable source and their text. As I've found all the ones in existence I think :) They all tend to match each other anyways, simple stuff such as I haplogroup family has the highest frequency here and there bla bla, and that's it. Noonien Soong (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If anything, we should use a summarized version of Zennarnah's (excellent) analysis. But, as pointed out, i am sure the clueless anonymous user 77.78.199... will make a total sham of it, POV'ing it so the conclusion is that Bosniaks are dscended directly from Jesus or other such ridiculous assertions.

I am in the process of writing a summarized analysis of genetics of south slavs in general, drawing a comparison to other Slavs and Europeans. I offer to contribute. Hxseek (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have something against Jesus?! ;) Noonien Soong (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, No. He's a great man. My point is some editors unfortunately (perhaps inadvertently) draw over simplified, pre-mature conclusions from genetic studies. That is why some are against the inclusion of genetic in articles, because from our current knowledge it hasn't really elucidated that much on the specific ancestry of peoples. All we can currently do is compare trends and similarities, although it is very tempting to say "R1b was brought in the Celts".

To try and equate a genetic marker to a certain language, ethnos, ancient european material culture, or whatever, is well nigh impossible. It is just so compicated. I mean, during Roman occupation of the Balkans and subsequent "barbarian invasions" there was so much population exchange that we do not know how much of the original population was left, and who 'moved in'.. The Romans at times wiped out entire tribes (those that rebelled), or moved them far away to ,eg Asia; whilst they brought others in from other far-flung regions. Then came Goths, Huns, Avars, Bugars, Slavs - which were all polyethnic conglomerations. We can only guess at the constituent peoples and numerical proportion of each Hxseek (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes we do, as DNA studies can uncover whether a tribe mixed or was ACTUALLY conquered or just allied against a common enemy, for example Bosniaks seem to very intensly frequent the I haplogroup as much as Scandinavians do, which means they didn't actually mix with Slavs, due to terrain and pride driven war like culture most probably, which adds new interesting angles to this region. However most reputable texts highlight something like this, such as John. J. Wilkes book about Illyrians, but new Science, the DNA analysis almost precisely underline his anthropological studies, that Bosniaks uniquely may be the only people indigenous to Bosnia. 77.78.198.26 (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. Bosniaks, Croats, etc have Haplo I2. Totally different origin to the Scandinavian I1. Hxseek (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

An IP user derives conclusion what happened 1.500 years ago according to I-HG which originated 35-40.000 years ago in Paleolithic Europe, when human problems were 25 feet tall beasts and how to collect some food around. Unbelievable. But even if IP user takes I2 for his claims it makes no sense, because it originated 20.000 years ago in the former Adriatic steppes and Western Balkans when human problems were nothing better - neanderthals, mamuts and cave lions. Also it cannot be used as proof that Bosniaks didn't actually mix with Slavs because Bosniaks became Slavs in the same way and in the same time as other South Slavs, BTW Croats also have a lot of I2, as the matter of fact, cumulatively more than Bosniaks, and they have no problem with their modern perception of Slavic ancestry. Y-chrommosome haplo groups are not reflection of ethnicity neither ethnicity is reflection of genetic code! Once for all times: people stop this unscientific bullshit. Zenanarh (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well written Zenanarh!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.135.135 (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hxseek: that proves your incompetence in the subject due to L2 being the new Name for I1 which isn't really taken up as Scientists often take naming convention changes very slow or impossible to achieve.
Zenanarh: You forgot the fact that Bosniaks frequent the I1 haplogroup as much as Norwegians and Swedes. While Serbia cannot even be said to frequent it at all, since the computer generated maps show Serbia almost white instead of blue in frequency of I1. Further- Serbia frequents E3 haplogroup more than any other haplogroup and more than anyone else in Europe. How do you explain that? How can these 2 people be the same tribe? How can Bosniaks be the only Slavs with identical genetic signatures as Norwegians? 91.191.3.222 (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To the n00b who keeps reverting

I think you would do well to read over the following policies, since you are violating all of them:-

• WP:NPA
• WP:CIVIL
• WP:CONSENSUS
• WP:3RR
• WP:NPOV
• WP:OR

There are more, but it would take up too much space and these are the main ones.

If you look through the archives of this talk page and the article, it was agreed on that the version you keep reverting to was a POV page and was original research. You are actually the one who did the initial revert, and you reverted to the bad version. The current version was agreed on by most people, and it is neutral and well sourced.

Please stop reverting to the incorrect, POV, OR version until a consensus is reached that "your" version is the correct one. Otherwise, this page will continue to be reverted. 124.186.9.89 (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, fuck it. I just reverted back to your version. I don't care anymore. There's no point arguing with racist, closed minded bigots. People like that are the reason there is war, poverty and hate all around us. Have a nice life. 124.186.9.89 (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

References

I repair some links about Bosniaks in the world, please do not insert Muslims like nation among Bosniaks, bescouse many other ethnicums declare them selfs like muslims not only Bosniaks, but also Macedonians Turks Albanians Montenegrians....--Makedonij (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The source is the 2008 report ordered by the Turkish National Security Council and performed by turkish academics from universities in Turkey. The source is highly reliable and also provided in the Turkey article and demographics of Turkey article. I will give you a couple of days to read this message before I revert the dubious tag. I should also mention, it is funny to see people who doesn't even know Turkish discard sources in Turkish. Hmm? Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the 'dubious tags' now, since no one seems to want a discussion? And elaborated on the source. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Since all of your links are in Turkish, and apparently these insanely large figures on "2 million Bosniaks" living happily in Turkey cannot be corroborated by any independent Western source, would you be kind enough to elaborate to us (non-Turkish speakers) what exactly were the criteria used in the census to assign the "Bosniak ethnicity" to Turkish citizens, namely are those just naturalized Turks with some distant Slavic ancestry who embraced Islam, or there are more linguistic/cultural grounds to it? Can they talk South Slavic? Are they organized in ethnic matrixes? Is Bosniak the official minority language in Turkey, used in education/media for Turkish Bosniaks? And most importantly: What were the figures on Bosniak-declared Turks in previous years, 2007, 2006, 2005...? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Also: were these figures invented/estimated by Turkish academics, or this was an actual census, people declaring their ethnicity as Bosniak? Judging from the current article wording "approximately 2,000,000 Turks descend directly from Bosniaks" - I suspect the former, and I'm afraid these kind of "estimates" are not firm enough grounds to incorporate Bosnik-descending Turks into the modern conception of "Bosniak ethnos". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Greetings friend! Like I stated earlier, the source is the official 2008 governmental repport on minority groups in Turkey. It simply says in the report that the academics have estimated that about 2 million Bosniaks live in Turkey - I don't know any further details of the estimate or how these Bosniaks relate to the Bosnian language. But you do not need to know Bosnian fluently to be a Bosniak anyways. I would like to remind you to keep your civil manners, it was not very civil to write "living happily" in such a sarcastic manner. I know that you dislike Bosniaks but please be kind =). And I do not approve of your disbelief of Turkish estimates, it seems that according to you, estimates must be western to be reliable?! That is a rather rasistic view, I think the Turks know the best who lives in their land. Cheers friend Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And in addition, all through the mid-19th century to the early 20th century Bosniaks from the Balkans emigrated in numbers of 250.000-300.000, only from Sandzak were there 50.000 emigrants. With the suspected population growth of the Bosniaks livinh "happily ;)" in Turkey (not being massacred by their neighbours or starved) there is easily a chance of two million proud Bosniaks in turkey. They have in deed retained their Bosniak ethnos, it has only been three-four generations you know. :) Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry for sarcasm, but this doubling the number of Bosniaks in the world simply beggars belief! I'm aware that lots of Bosniaks emigrated to Turkey during the desintegration of Ottoman Empire (and the bloodsheds that accompanied it :(, and even vaguely remember reading about some very large government-enforced population exchanges that occurred in Yugoslavias 1&2 (apparently they terminated the program because lots of Albanians were using it to smuggle into the Turkey?), but the very notion that the number of Bosniaks in the Turkey now is larger than the one in Bosnia&Herzegovina is outrageous.

Now, you haven't really answered my question; you say that the "academic have estimated 2M Bosniaks" - so it's not an official census (i.e. there are not 2M people who wrote their personal signature on the piece of paper that says "ethnicity:Bosniak"). OK. So they're just estimated to be descendants of immigrated Bosniaks, possibly (and probably) mixed with native Turkish citizens, not necessarily familiar with the Bosniak language/culture, and not necessarily being exposed to it in their lifetime at all. I suspect that most of them would declare themselves as Turks nowadays, but that's just me.

The modern conception of "nationality" is completely by declaration - you're Bosniak, Serb, Croat or whatever you wish to be if you declare so. The problem with this Turkish academic estimates is therefore twofold

1. They're just estimates, not official census in which people explicitely declared what their ethnicity or nationality is. This can't be a valid data presented side-by-side with the numbers of Bosniaks in other countries that actually haved declared so (and thus receive the benefits of being official minority group).
2. The estimate is based on obsolete notion of ancestrality to classify ethnicity/nationality. We cannot know how much of these have completely assimilated and became naturalized Turks. 3-4 generations is a very long period in the Balkans (enough for plenty ethnogeneses and linguogeneses to occur, or genocides/linguocides for that matter ;)

All in all, this edit strikes me as quite controversial. I'd love to hear what others think on this (everyone, please be civil and don't respond to flamebaits) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Zdravo prijatelje. I would like to mention rather instantly two important details to your attention, which I believe you might have forgotten. If you don't mind of course:

• Many Wikipedian articles (if not a vast majority) dealing with ethnic groups and their population figures provide oftenly estimates. Judging from this it undoubtly seems that estimate based figures are acceptable to the community editors, and thus census figures are not necessary. If you take a look a the Croats article I am sure you will notice this.

• Although not having a full insight into the criteria used by the Turkish government in defining a member of the Bosniak community in Turkey, I nevertheless highly suspect that the investigators had the common sense of not considering a Turk with a 5% Bosniak gene heritance to be an ethnic Bosniak. I also however know that ethnicity is not only gene inheritance, but as well (and if not even more) the cultural and emotional attachment to a group of people or a region, knowing this I could almost be certain of that the investigators did not include 'Bosniaks' who were completly naturalized Turks and those who had almost lost all connections with Bosnia.

Mentioning these main factors, I believe that the source of two million Bosniaks in Turkey is quite acceptable. As for the Balkans being an area were genocides and radical maniacs are being produced every other hour, it is not unfamiliar to me. But I do not believe the Bosniaks are to be blamed, how can you ever blame someone who is unarmed and weak. Pozdrav Ivane. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed they have. However, there are 2 major differences:

• They regularly all constitute a minority (sometimes significant) of the main ethnical groupation in mother country. What you're doing here is increasing the number of Bosniaks by > 100%.
• All of the other "estimates" (i.e. rounded figures not obtained by census) are based on several sources and censi data from previous years (which demonstrate population increase over time). AFAICS, there is no such thing here, so you must understand other people concerns seeing these large numbers coming "out of the blue". Morover, citing 7 web sources which are all in fact different presentations of 1 source (the estimate of Turkish academics) misleads the reader that there are in fact 7 different sources that corroborate these figures, which in fact there are not.

Also, the fact that the estimation methodology has not been published severly discredits the source. I personally wouldn't speculate on it, but can assure you that there are many folks that are just as likely to dismiss these figures as unrealistic and laughable as you are likely to assume that Turkish academics used "reliable methods based on common sense". One may ask quastions such as why those 2M Bosniaks don't get right to vote in B&H elections, don't contribute to it's culture proportionally to it's number (apart from Eurovision ;), and don't contribute to the pool of speakers of Bosniak language. Too many questions IMHO. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

National Symbol of the Bosniaks/Bosniacs

I don't agree that this present symbol on wiki is the symbol of Bosniaks-muslims, Bosnian muslims. It is the symbol of Bosnia and Herzegovina, unfortunately denounced by Bosnian Croats and Serbs. Only after the war, have certain circles within the Bosniak-muslim community start using the lily.

I think this is a misinterpretation. Bosniaks-muslims over the years identified them selfs with the

crescent and the star. Gradascevic for example used a yellow crescent and star on a green background.

Even an expert for heraldry, a Profesor at the Philosophy Faculty in Sarajevo argued that Bosniaks "aren't represented in the Federation emblem/coat of arms"/"nisu zastupljeni na grbu Federacije" during the public debate on the new emblem of the Federation of BH.

Hello friend.

You might disagree on the national symbol of Bosniaks, but this symbol is the official and is protected by the dayton agreement. Cheers mate Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, How so is it protected by the Dayton Agreement?The DA didn't regulate the symbols of the three constitutive peoples. Best! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.205.255 (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Good evening! Well that might be true actually, I'll admit that I'm not an expert of the details in the DA. But however on the flag of the federation of Bosnia, Bosniaks are presented by the lilly, so this must mean that it is sort of official (and agreed)? Greetings Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Drug, ne bas.You see the DA didn't regulate the flad and coa of arms of either the Bosniaks or the Federation. The Flag and coat of arms/emblem of the Federation were voted by the Parliament of FBIH after the war. And by the way, that emblem was ruled as "unconstitutional" by the Constitutional Court of B&H. Believe me, I study law:) Why Bosniak parliamentarians voted for that symbol...I don't know.But never in Bosnia's history could you have found a lily on a green background except for the FBIH emblem. Zdravo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hicmet (talk • contribs) 16:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Geneticstudy" :
  • Marjanović, Damir; et al. "[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16266413&dopt=Abstract The peopling of modern Bosnia-Herzegovina: Y-chromosome haplogroups in the three main ethnic groups]." ''Institute for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, [[University of Sarajevo]].'' November, 2005
  • Marjanović, Damir; et al. "[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16266413&dopt=Abstract The peopling of modern Bosnia-Herzegovina: Y-chromosome haplogroups in the three main ethnic groups]." ''Institute for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, [[University of Sarajevo]].'' November, 2005.

DumZiBoT (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

US Bosnians are not US Bosniaks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surnames

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bosniak populations outside Bosnia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bosnia - centre of Illyrian Kingdom?

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

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

It's here [5]. Show me where? Pages 254-281? Page 254 is 9th chapter "Imperial Illyrians", beginning in 1st century, it's about the Roman province Illyricum, sometimes Illyria. Illyrian state was already R.I.P.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picture of Tvrtko

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Current Version

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

Rewrite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B&H geographically:

64% Herzegovina, 52% Bosnia

B&H ethnically:

72% Croats, 44% Bosniaks, 31% Serbs

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

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

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

Croats ~28% (Cro mainland + Dalmatia)

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

Serbia 16%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The word autochthonous

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

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

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

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

Genetics in History section

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

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

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

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

RESPONSE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

07:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Genetics / Origin

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

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

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

Not sure how to upload a picture..

chart

ima li neko da stavi ovu sliku u clanak?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

diaspora bosnians

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

WP:COMMONNAME

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you serious?

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

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

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

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

"Turks"

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

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

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

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

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

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

History

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

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

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

Language

Wtf? Listen to this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important dates to Bosniaks

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

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

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

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

Bosniak leaders who declare themselves as Turks

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

For all the HATERS and "concerned editors" !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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