Talk:Bosniaks/Archive 1

Encyclopedia Britannica,
eleventh edition (year: 1910 (!)), Volume IV, page 281, entry "Bosnia and Herzegovina", subentry (#10) Population and National Characteristics (quote:)

In 1895 the population, which tends to increase slowly... numbered 1,568,092. The alien element is small, consisting chiefly of Austro-Hungarians, gipsies, Italians and Jews. Spanish is a common language of the Jews, whose ancestors fled hither, during the 16th century, to escape the Inquisition.

The natives are officialy described as Bosniaks, but classify themselves according to religion. Thus the Roman Catholics PREFER the name of CROATS, Hrvats or Latins; the Orthodox, of SERBS; THE MOSLEMS, OF TURKS.

All alike belong to the Serbo-Croatian branch of the Slavonic race; and all speak a language almost identical to Serbian, though written by the Roman Catholics in Latin instead of Cyrillic letters.

TO AVOID OFFENDING EITHER "SERBS" OR "CROATS," IT IS OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED "BOSNITCH." ... The Bosnians or Bosniaks resemble their Serbian kindfolk in both appearance and character. They have the same love for poetry, music and romance; the same *intense* pride in their race and history; many of the same superstitions and customs. The Christians retain the Serbian costume, modified in detail, as the occasional use of the turban or fez. The "Turkish" women have in some districts abandoned the veil; but in others they even cover the eyes when they leave home. (end quote) -- Who wrote this Serbian propaganda?????????????????????????????????

I have nothing against the people of Serbia even if they did lots of bad to us. Iam Bosnian 1st My ancestors were Croat YES as most of my counrtymen will agree with that. Those who dont have no idea and have been barinwashed by politics. Pointless to say that the things we Bosnians have in common with Serbs is Turkish things not Serbian. All the costumes, food, music are Turkish origin etc....

"Bosnian Rulers called their Language Serbian
Bosnian ban (viceroy) Stefan Kotromanic (1322-1353) declares in 1333. a letter to Dubrovnik in which he states: "Thus I the noble ban Stefan impress my golden seal, so that all may know and see the truth. This is why the seals are equal, two in Latin and two in Serbian and all are sealed in gold.". "

hahhaha maybe serbo-croatian to be correct

"The letter to Dubrovnik
The Pope sent in 1188 to the bishop of Dubrovnik a letter and in it he acknowledges all the old rights of the Dubrovnik church. In the letter, he mentions Serbian Bosnia: "regnum Servilie, quod est Bosna" (Serbian kingdom of Bosnia). That was in the time of Ban Kulin.

("regnum" must have loosely meant kingdom in that time for, Bosnia was then a "banovina")

"From: I. Kukuljevic, Codex diplom, II, 148, p. 21.) " "In Perugia, February 24th., 1252 In his letter, Johannes, the archbishop of Dubrovnik (archiepiscopus Ragusinus), mentions Serbian Bosnia: "regnum Seruilie, quod est Bosgna" i.e. "Serbian kingdom of Bosnia". ("Regnum" must have loosely meant kingdom in that time for, Bosnia was then a "banovina".) "...tria regna, videlicet regnum Zachlomie, regnum Seruilie, quod est Bosgna et regnum Tribunie. Et regnum Zachulmie extenditur vsque ad prouinciam Spalatensem, regnum Seruilie extenditur vsque ad prouinciam Collocensem, regnum Tribunie extenditur vsque ad prouinciam Dirachinam." From: "Bullarium Ragusium", 401-402"

Encyclopedia Britannica
1. The first recorded mention of Bosnia was written during this period by the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, who described "Bosona" as a district in "baptized Serbia."

2. TVRTKO KOTROMANIC (b. c. 1338--d. 1391), probably the greatest ruler of Bosnia, ruling as Bosnian ban (provincial lord, subservient to the king of Hungary) from 1353 and king of the Serbs and Bosnia from 1377.

3. The Ottoman Turks invaded Bosnia in 1386, and after many battles it became a Turkish province in 1463. Hum held out longer under rulers who styled themselves herceg ("duke") of St. Sava--a name recalled today in Herzegovina.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1917
Bosnia and Herzegovina Population "Excluding some 30,000 Albanians living in the south-east, the Jews who emigrated in earlier times from Spain, a few Osmanli Turks, the merchants, officials. and Austrian troops, the rest of the population (about 98 per cent) belong to the southern Slavonic people, the Serbs. Although one in race, the people form in religious beliefs three sharply separated divisions: the Mohammedans, about 550,000 persons (35 per cent), Greek Schismatics, about 674,000 persons (43 per cent), and Catholics, about 334,000 persons (21.3 per cent). The last mentioned are chiefly peasants."

De Originibus Slavicis, 1745, Joan Christofori de Jordan
In his study of the Slavs (De Originibus Slavicis, 1745), Joan Christofori de Jordan, one of the founders of Slavistics in Germania, believes that early German sources, namely Einhard (e.g. Sorabos, quae natio magnam Dalmatiae partem obtinere dicitur), offer important information as to Serbia-Bosnia's western borders. According to Christofori, all the historical evidence strongly suggests that Serbi-Bosnia's western border ran along the Una and Sava rivers, centered at Srb, an ancient stronghold on the Una River.

Illyria Sacrum, Daniele Farlati
Illyria Sacrum is a massive eight-volume history of the Church in Illyria prepared in the 18th and 19th centuries by three Italian Jesuits, Filipo Riceputi, Daniele Farlati and Jacobo Coleti. Illyria Sacrum is based on some 300 volumes of raw source materials collected over a twenty-year period. The first volume was published in 1751 and the eighth in 1819.

Historically speaking, Farlati writes, there are two Serbias. One Serbia is Primorje or Maritime Serbia. The other Serbia is Zagorje or Interior Serbia. Zagorje is made up of two parts, Bosnia and Rascia/Raska (partes Serbliae). Bosnia (pars Serbliae), Farlati writes, like Raska, is a Serb land, an original and integral part of Zagorja or Interior Serbia.

As we see above there are only serbs and croats in Bosnia al other thing is propaganda. My own Surname is BOSNJAK and that is a common Serbian AND croatian Surname. My surname coms from he village Bosnia wich is in near KAKANJ in bosnia. We have one church and a lot of houses there it is on a mountain and the village is around 900 years old probobly more but on the cementry you can se alla serbs in my family who was living there in the past. and it is a Serbian village and Bosnjak is just a surename not a peoples kind that people think it is today. Bosnjaks re Serbs and Croats. There are also a lot of villages in Croatia where people is named by their village Bosnjak beacuse their villages name is Bosnia.

I ask you people on this page to add that Bosnjak also is a Serbian and Croatian Surname that has been used much longer that the new people group of "Bosnjak" wich is translated in english Bosniak and Bosnjak in Serbian/Croatian. I do not want to change much on this page beacuse i think you would think ive done wrong but you see there are a lot of Bosnjaks that are serbs or croats

Here is the crotian player Ivan Bosnjak []

http://www.parlament.sr.gov.yu/content/lat/sastav/poslanici_detalji.asp?id=790 A serbian who works for the parlament in serbia

http://www.studiacroatica.com/jero/luki2.htm People who helped croats druing 1945 dr. Bošnjak § 8. Redovitim članovima mogu biti samo Hrvati. (only be croats can be members)

http://www.serbianunity.net/culture/art/Olgin/Kriticari/0490.htm another serb with surname Bosnjak

http://www.zeljko-bosnjak.net/ a croat with that surname

http://www.diskografija.com/sastav/andrea-bosnjak.htm another croatian artist

http://www.im.ns.ac.yu/faculty/bosnjaki/ another serb

http://www.hdzbih.org/index.php?modul=predsjednistvo Rade Bošnjak, Vice president of the Nationalist party in Bosnia the Croatian party BH HDZ

http://vinkovci.gkvk.hr/Grad/poglavarstvo/vijece.html Memebr in croatian nationalist party in croatia HDZ Milan Bošnjak (HDZ)

As we all can see the most of people that has the surname Bosnjak is serbian and Croatian! i want this to be public and not people lying because I am a serb and Croat with that surname and i won give to anyone to push dpwn my surname and call it something else that it isnt!! Im right now writing a book in serbian that is about this very common serbian croatian surname and that show that there is no people who are bosnjak that that is just a surname and it will be in English later and then i will make it public and show everyone about the lies that are wrote here and everywhere else. I just dont know if you have a strong Bosnian MUSLIM lobby here but i just want to make a point and that is that BOSNJAK is a surname more then a nation because the bosnjak surname is older than the nation which is counted to be around 10 years old.

Complexion/Appearence
I know this topic is probably difficult but I would find it useful to have a note describing what Bosniaks look like. I am a lawyer working for a Bosniak client of Turkish national origins who claims to have been treated in a racist manner. Whether a person is of a different appearence is of importance as to the likelihood of them being treated in a racist manner or being persecuted. Such differences, if there are any, between Bosniaks and e.g. ethnic Serbs or Turks, would not be as readily apparent to an un-travelled Westerner such as myself. Lucifer(sc) 18:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to be able to help but I'm not sure what to say. People tell each other apart based on speech, dialect, and name rather than physical differences. There isn't really any typical Bosniak face or figure and you'd be hard pressed to find any major differences between Bosniaks and Serbs (or Croats for that matter). Regarding Turks, there there's a more pronounced difference. Bosniaks are generally of a lighter skin tone and brown and blonde hair seem to be more common, whereas most Turks look more like a mediterranean people (slightly darker skin tone, black hair is common). In my experiences Bosniaks are on average a little taller than Turks. There are, however, many Bosniaks that do look very mediterranean, and could probably be mistaken for Turks (perhaps your client is one of them?). Live Forever 19:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Islamic practices
Can somebody talk about their degree of support of some Islamic practices: Ramadan, no-alcohol, poligamy, veil?


 * Why, do you think it's important? I don't.
 * Vedran 22:35, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * It can be useful to dispel any myths about radical Islam among Bosniaks. The very fact that someone's asking about these things means that there are some assumptions/generalizations being made about it, and I doubt they're positive and/or true. --Shallot 15:27, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Someone else made a new page about this now: Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bosnian Muslims or Bosniaks?
Summary

This thread discusses whether all the articles that mention Bosnian Muslims should be edited to point to Bosniaks instead. The nation previously known as Bosnian Muslims unanimously decided to change the name to Bosniaks as to avoid ambiguity - there are Bosniaks of other religions, and there are Muslims of other nations. Many disputed this change.

Vedran (and others) are for the edit. Their arguments include:
 * 1) The new name, Bosniaks, is a part of the Dayton Peace Accord signed by all warring parties in 1995. One could argue that if Serbs haven't accepted this name the peace wouldn't have been reached. Consequentially, it's a part of all the Bosnian constitutions. Thus, refusing to accept this name is not only childish and immature but also unconstitutional.
 * 2) Any nation has the right to change its name if it finds the old name inappropriate for any reason. The most recent examples of this include: Inuit, Native Americans and Belarusians.
 * 3) Bosniaks indeed once called themselves Muslims. But requiring that in historical texts a contemporary name should always be used is ludicrous. Accepting consistently such a policy would require thousands of complicated edits throughout Wikipedia including all the articles that mention: the above nations; all married females; all actors and musicians with "artistic" names; countries that changed their names such as Myanmar (ex Burma) and Sri Lanka (ex Ceylon). It's just not a common practice on Wikipedia. Furthermore, if the old name has an ambiguous, incorrect or derisive meaning (such as the case with Bosnian Muslims), bearers of that name would oppose using the old name even in historical context.
 * 4) The word Muslim has a specific ritual meaning. A person who calles themself Muslim assumes certain obligations. Certainly it's an oxymoron to have a note saying "Bosnian Muslim" beside the name of a Communist leader.
 * 5) "Bosniak" is not the same thing as "Bosnian". "Bosniak" is an archaic form of "Bosnian", but it wasn't used for ages and not outside of Bosnia and Turkey, so there's no harm in it changing its meaning today. If Muslim the nation can be different from Muslim the religion, then Bosniak the nation can be different from Bosnian the citizen of Bosnia.
 * 6) And what about Bosniaks in Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, Macedonia? They can't be called "Bosnian Muslims", can they?
 * 7) Wikipedia is about facts, it should aim to provide solid facts and not opinions. The Bosniak name is a fact today, accepted by everyone except a few persons.

Igor, Nikola (and others) are against the change. Their counter-arguments include:
 * 1) DPA is not a retroactive agreement on history. It doesn't change the fact that Bosnian Muslims called themselves that until 1990ies (see argument #3).
 * 2) These examples do not apply to Bosniaks. Namely, there are two differences compared to Inuit: a) Inuit never called themselves Eskimo (see argument #3) and b) there is no other nation called Inuit - or the word Inuit has no other meaning that would make it ambiguous (see argument #5).
 * 3) In such cases, for persons their "most well known name" should be used. Whether Bosnian Muslim or Bosniak is more well known is open for discussion. Some consider the name Bosniak to be the one that is ambiguous, incorrect and derisive (see argument #5).
 * 4) In BCHS the word Muslim means a nation when written with capital M, and religion when written with lower-case m. It can even be pronounced differently if necessary. In English, the phrase "Bosnian Muslims" can be used to avoid ambiguity (see argument #6).
 * 5) Bosniak means the same thing as Bosnian, which makes Bosnian Serbs and Croats lesser Bosnians than Muslims.
 * 6) They are not the same nation as Bosniaks / Bosnian Muslims (not discussed).
 * 7) Wikipedia is about discussion and everything is open for debate.

''Igor, Nikola, my replies are below. I suggest that we restart the discussion from this summary. Others, please sign if you agree.''


 * I'm rarely on Wikipedia now and probably couldn't participate seriously. Nikola


 * Comments:
 * 3. - All of (Eskimo, Indians, Byelorussians, Burma, Ceylon) are more well known then their counterparts.
 * 4. - You gotta be kidding about pronounciation?
 * No, you just say capitals a bit louder and clearer. I even recall reading a book (by a Western author) which said "he pronounced it in such a way that all the capitals could be heard". Nikola
 * Teri Pra&#269;et, Jednakost rituala, Belgrade 1999, page 55. And there surely are more. Nikola 08:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * --Vedran 19:16, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Regarding the third (pro-)point raised above: it's not actually useful or possible to try to deter people from making whatever amount of edits to change these references. Especially given the exactness of the term "Muslims by nationality" compared to "Bosnian Muslims" (now that the former page exists). Unless we actually have a real vote on the issue, such definite statements cannot be made. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   23:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * With reference to the fifth counter-point raised above, I'll note that the term Bo&#353;njak, is used by a last name among the Croats, though with a different accentuation. Nevertheless, it seems fairly accurate to declare this original term archaic (the modern, used term is "Bosanac/Bosanci" which is noticably different) so that this point isn't particularly important. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   23:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, regardless of what you think, Igor, Bosniaks themselves have made up their mind. In 1993, Congress of Bosnian Muslim Intellectuals declared that Bosniak was a more appropriate name then Muslim. The name was a part of Dayton Peace Agreement, and thus, the name Bosniaks was mentioned in Constitutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska. Therefore, your stubborn denial of that name is not only childish and immature, but also unconstitutional.

The issue IMO is the same as calling Inuit "Eskimo" or calling Native Americans "Indians". A name given to a nation by others is not necessarily the name they would prefer to be called. A person that respects neutrality should use latter. --Vedran 13:21, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The term Indians was given to the Native Americans by Indo-Europeans, actually by those thinking they had reached India. The Native Americans never referred to themselves as Indians. The Inuit call themselves the Inu, "the people". The Bosnian Muslims referred to themselves as such prior to 1993 before adopting the term Bosniak (Bo&#353;njaci) all of a sudden so I don't really see the parallel. Isn't it an anachronism to use the term prior to 1993 to describe simply the Muslims? It denoted Bosnians of all faiths prior to 1993. --Igor 5:35, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * So you're trying to argue this name with me.


 * Exactly, nothing before September 1993 when it was ACTUALLY ADOPTED. Anything else is anachornistic, projecting the present into the future. Like saying Serbs won the 2002 World Championships in Basketball ergo we invented basketball and have been playing it since the 7th century. Sounds stupid doesn't it? Now you catch my drift. -- Igor 09:39, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Then I guess you should go to Tina Turner and change the name everywhere to Anna Mae Bullock cause that was her name before she met Ike Turner. The same goes for all married females in Wikipedia and all the actors and singers that use an "artistic name" - articles should be edited to use an adequate name for each period. Go ahead and edit all that, then come back here :) --Vedran 14:33, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Depends, true biographers refere to Cassius Clay in the Early days but correct me if I am wrong, when a person changes their name, it means that the decision can be applied retroactively i.e. all former references to the old name can be replaced with the new. You are not a new person, you are just replacing your. However, whereas ONE INDIVIDUAL can legally make that decision, there is no way to say the same for a whole people of almost 2 million.


 * Why not? What exactly is the difference? --Vedran


 * You can not say (and I can prove it too), that all Bosnian Muslims agree with the name change.


 * They are free to call themselves what they like. However, other people, such as me, who desire to be called Bosniaks - should be called Bosniaks. --Vedran


 * Besides, such things are not applied to in History. The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Yugoslav is referred to as such prior to 1929 when it became Yugoslavia, i.e. The 13 colonies before the USA, i.e. the Franks before the French etc. -- Igor 4:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * When talking about the history of Bosniaks - maybe. When mentioning some other unrelated event, then the name serves only one purpose and that is to identify something. That "something" is a nation which is today called Bosniaks. Using a different name can only cause confusion. --Vedran 22:14, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Of course, people should be referred by their most well known name,


 * Not if the name bears ambiguous / incorrect / derisive meanings, such as the case with Eskimo, or Myanmar (better known as Burma) or... --Vedran 17:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * But in this case Bosniak is ambigious, incorrect and derisive. Nikola


 * Disagree. --Vedran 22:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nikola, the Bosniak name causes ambiguities and confusion. -- Igor 4:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't see what's there to disagree with. "Bosniak" could mean either "Bosnian" or "Bosnian Muslim"


 * It means neither. --Vedran


 * It means both. Nikola


 * *sigh* well I guess if I choose that "tree" for me means "bus" that gives me right to edit a whole bunch of articles. --Vedran


 * Bosniak is the same as Bosnian. Bošnjak is derived from Bosna just as dešnjak is derived from desno/desna. No doubt about it and the term Bosniak means just that in English too. Actually it is used as an adjective in French bosniaque (for Bosnian no such thing as bosnien) and I believe that in the 19th century English Bosniac was used much more frequently than Bosnian. -- Igor 4:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Ok. This calls for another historical examle: Italians vs. Itals. Two very different things. Or Histrians vs. Istrians. Or Dalmatians vs. Dalmatinians. Pick one. --Vedran 22:14, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)

- ambigious, and even if that is not the intention, it is seen by some as saying that Bosnian Serbs and Croats are not Bosnians and Bosnian Muslims are the only Bosnians - derisive, and because of both things it is incorrect. Nikola


 * Those meanings exist nowhere but in paranoid imaginations of persons that believe it. --Vedran 12:04, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * No it means just that. Why are you all of a sudden a Bosniak from 1994 if everyone before that was too? -- Igor 4:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * National emancipation perhaps? --Vedran 22:14, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there are more people that believe it then people who don't. Nikola


 * Then they should learn the correct meaning. BosniaK is not the same thing as BosniaN; in BCHS languages it has an even more distinctive spelling. Of course, language is in the ear of listener so to say, just like (Chevy) Nova meaning "No-Go" in Spanish, or Coca-Cola meaning something dirty in Chinese. Well look at the URL - it has "en" at the beginning - it means this is in English. In English Bosniak definitely doesn't mean Bosnian. --Vedran


 * but in this case, Bosnian Muslim is as well known as Bosniak. Nikola


 * Well, I'm sorry that I have to dissapoint you, but it's not open for discussion.


 * My dear friend you seem to be forgetting where you are, this is Wikipedia, everything is open to discussion, that's the beauty of it. -- Igor 09:39, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Ok, so let's discuss about whether 2+2 is 4 or 5. See? I believe you're wrong. Wikipedia is about facts, and discussion is just a method to reach those facts. It doesn't mean that you can ignore the facts that you don't like. --Vedran 14:33, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Facts are the term Bosniak was not used before the 1993-4 decision. So you can use it for events describing everyting post but not pre. That's a fact. -- Igor 4:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the kind of thing I was trying to avoid with that summary above - going in circles. --Vedran 22:14, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Allow me to repeat: Bosniak national name was part of the Dayton Peace Agreement.


 * So put it down as such. That's a fact, Bosniak nationality pre-1993 is not. -- Igor 09:39, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, I fail to see then why is it changed in, for example, Communist Yugoslav Leadership, for a man who himself called "Muslim" 20 years before Dayton. Nikola 20:31, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Were he alive today he might call himself a Bosniak. Who are we to judge? We should use an exact ethnical description, not the one used at the time, even if the person themself used it.


 * :) and you talk about facts. Were he alive today he would... Speculation. -- Igor 4:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Yeah, yeah. So Martin Luther King probably called himself a "nigger"? --Vedran


 * Exactly. We are not to judge how dead people would call themselves if they are alive. Therefore, we should call them as they called themselves. Bosnian Muslim is an exact ethnical description, unlike Bosniak. Nikola


 * No, it isn't. Muslim isn't just a name, it's an Arabic word meaning "a person who believes that Allah is the only God and Mohammad is his prophet" (extrapolated).


 * And Bosniak just means Bosnian. But Bosnian Muslim describes the group of Muslims from Bosnia most acurately, Bosnian and Muslim. -- Igor 4:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Exactly, it describes a group of Muslims from Bosnia, it doesn't describe a nation. --Vedran 22:14, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * In English, maybe, but in S/C/B/S-C/BHS language(s), it isn't, which you well know. Anyway this is irrelevant as I proposed not "Muslim" but "Bosnian Muslim" anyway. Nikola


 * I don't see how Muslim can mean one thing in English and other in BHS, especially since it's actually an Arabic word. --Vedran


 * In that language, "musliman" means "a person of Muslim religion" while "Musliman" mean "a person of Muslim ethnicity", don't pretend that you don't know it! Nikola


 * Bosnian Muslim is a Muslim from Bosnia, therefore it's a religious description - not ethnical.


 * That's a whole new discussion, not my problem, fact is, Islam is the only thing that makes Bosnian Muslims distinct from the Serbs. But the Bosnian Muslims recognize themselves as a distinct entity so who are we, your or me, to judge whether a religious description is a good substition for an ethnic one? -- Igor 4:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * If Islam is the only thing that makes Bosniaks distinct from Serbs, then there's an even less distinction between Serbs and Croats. In that case I suggest that Serbs in Bosnia be called "Bosnian Orthodox" and Croats be called "Bosnian Catholics". Who are we to judge after all? --Vedran 22:14, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Bosnian Muslim is translation of "Bosanski Musliman", not of "Bosanski musliman", which are two different things - even if in English language they translate the same. Nikola


 * Yeah, I'm familiar with the Communist concept of Ethnical Muslims (that's how I usually translate it) but I don't accept it :) --Vedran 22:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I also don't accept it, but Bosnian Muslims did accepted it at the time. Nikola


 * What about i.e. myself? I describe myself as an atheist, how can I accept to be a "Bosnian Muslim"?


 * Most Communists who introduced the nation of Muslims were ateists too. -- Igor 4:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Winning the Muslim name was the step 1 of winning the Bosniak name. --Vedran 22:14, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * You are an atheist with Bosnian Muslim ethnic background. I don't see why is it not acceptable to you. Nikola


 * For the same reason that Inuit don't like to be called Eskimo - it's not an empty word, it has a meaning, I don't accept that meaning and I don't even want to discuss it. I demand that people call me the name I chose for myself.


 * The Inuit call themselves Inu, not Eskimo. The Bosnian Muslims before 1993 just called themselves Muslims (Muslimani) period. You want that instead, you can have it. -- Igor 4:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * No, Inuit didn't call themselves inu. Inu means people, men. Therefore they used "inu" for every other human being as well. Inuit is inu + article ("the people"). Inuit didn't have a specific name for themselves because meeting non-Inuit was so very rare. --Vedran 22:14, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)

All right, but I insist that for Dzemal Bijedic we use the name he chose for himself, and for other Bosnian Muslims of the time the name they chose for themselves. Nikola


 * Read the thread again, this means a lot of editing job for you and Igor, for members of other nations, females etc. --Vedran 12:04, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Let me add some other things: I don't have an "ethnical background", I'm a member of ethnical group called Bosniaks.

Being a member of an ethnical group gives you the background of the group. Nikola


 * I wanted to stress the fact that "has a bacground of" is a watered down version of "belongs to". --Vedran


 * Well, yes. Nikola


 * I asked you how an atheist can be a member of a group called Muslims, and you avoided the answer hiding behind the capital vs. lower case M fallacy.

It's not a falacy, it's a gramatical feature of the language. Many names of ethnic groups have a meaning that is not applicable today, but the name is still retained. Not all poles live in fields, not all Belorussians dress in white, and not all Bosnian Muslims practice Islam. Nikola


 * Interesting you should mention Belarus. Quoting from that article:
 * The spellings Belorussia and Byelorussia are transliterations of the name from the Russian language and should be considered obsolete. (...)  Some Belarusians perceive the name "Byelorussia" as derogatory, as a vestige of Russian and Soviet imperialism and policies of russification. Therefore they speak strongly in favor of the name "Belarus".
 * Another example of a nation excercising their right to choose their own name. And BTW no, Belarusian is not a person that wears white clothes, and Poljak is not a person living in the field. Read the respective articles.--Vedran 12:04, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what I said. Not every Pole lives in field, not every Belorussian dresses in white, and not every Bosnian Muslim is a Muslim. Nikola


 * Sorry, I wasn't clear. I wanted to say that Belarusian doesn't mean "White Russian", it doesn't even have a Slavic origin, please click on the link and read. "Belorussian" means a White Russian. "Belarusian" has some other meaning. Belarusians changed their name accordingly, they aren't "Belorussians" anymore, now they are "Belarusians" - notice A instead of O and just one S? --Vedran


 * However, plausible explanation of the name is that once they were Rus' who were dressing in white. Nikola


 * So you say "Bosnian Muslims" - then what about Bosniaks in Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia? They are the same ethnicity as what you call "Bosnian Muslims", just that the name doesn't apply anymore.

They aren't. Some of them call themselves the same way, but they are not. In censa here, some people call themselves Martians, Penguins, or, yes, Eskimos. I don't know for you but I don't believe them. And I'd rather believe that there are Martians infiltrated among humans then that Macedonian or Serbian Muslims are Bosniaks. Nikola


 * Care to enlighten us on what do you base your belief? --Vedran 12:04, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, science holds that it is possible that there is life outside Earth, so, there could be life on Mars (the planet is and especially was suitable for life), and if there is not much life it could easily exist without us finding it; if there is life there could be intelligent life, and if there is life of intelligence sufficient for space travel, it is possible that some lifeforms of that life have arrived here; if, for some reason (intelligence, exploration), it was necesary for them to infiltrate us, they could have done so. Nikola


 * :) I take this as some kind of revenge for my refusing to understand the difference between "Musliman" and "musliman". My question was: Why do you think that Macedonian and Serbian Muslims aren't Bosniaks? --Vedran


 * Because they are descendants of islamised Serbians and Macedonians and not of Bosnians. I know that there were migrations, but I've never heard that majority of their population are immigrants. Today they might feel that they have the same ethnicity as Bosniaks but then the name is completely incorrect. Nikola 20:15, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Interesting subject, but going off topic here. Bosniaks moved within the Ottoman Empire, many of them were high officials. There are many last names indicating a Bosnian origin in Serbia and Macedonia. --Vedran 22:14, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * What to do about them, pray tell? Did you know that it's sufficient for one to publicly declare himself a Muslim and shari'a (Muslim religious laws) automatically apply to him? Well I guess you didn't know that by calling myself a Muslim I step on the religion of my parents, didn't you?

With capital or small M? Nikola


 * Spoken (do you pronounce capital M differently?) --Vedran


 * Yes, if there is need. Nikola


 * Of course Communists couldn't care less about silly shari'a. --Vedran 22:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm positive that Bijedic was an atheist too. Using "(Bosnian Muslim)" in the Communist Leaders article is an oxymoron in my book. --Vedran 17:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Just shows how little you know. -- Igor 4:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Otherwise, I suppose that you won't mind going to these articles and changing the Inuit references to say Eskimo, cause that's how they were called at the time: Pitseolak Ashoona John Rae Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film etc. I think you can find many more. --Vedran 14:33, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * There are two differences: Inuit never called themselves Eskimo, and there were never other people who called themselves Inuit. Nikola 07:16, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * a) Bosniaks were always aware that Muslim was a temporary denomination. I have no proof for this but anecdotal, but it's a moot point anyway.


 * Their name it was still. Nikola


 * Isn't anymore. Accept it. --Vedran 22:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Accepted it. Going to change all pre-Dayton mentions of "Bosniaks" to "Bosnian Muslims". Nikola


 * b) Are you saying that there are some other Bosniaks in Africa or something? I don't think the name is "taken". --Vedran 17:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * No, only that there were other Bosniaks in Bosnia.


 * Ah, so you believe that Orthodox and Catholic Bosnians are also Bosniaks? Rather then Serbs or Croats? Interesting. --Vedran 22:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The word "Bosniak" means "Bosnian" as you, again, very well know. Nikola


 * So let me sum it up. You claim that the word Muslim means one thing when written with capital M and another with small m, but you refuse that words Bosniak and Bosnian have different meanings? --Vedran 12:04, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * In Slavic yes. A capital denotes a peoples (Srbi, Muslimani, Hrvati) a smallcase members of a faith (muslimani, hriscani). The same distinction is made with the Jews, i.e. jevreji for faithful, Jevreji for members of the Ladino or Yiddish speaking communities. Could I ask you a terribly embarassing question Vedran, do you even speak your people's tongue? -- Igor 4:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I live here my whole life, never heared anyone pronounce Muslimani with capital M differently. LMAO --Vedran 22:14, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes. To clarify it, today the words are often used with different meanings, but gramatically, they have the same meaning. Nikola 17:34, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Perhaps in Serb language. This part of Wikipedia is in English language. I think that in English Muslim means Muslim, and Bosniak doesn't have to mean Bosnian unless you ask the Serbs. Noone else seems to have a problem with this name. --Vedran 17:24, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Not perhaps but in the Serbian language and that language spoken by Croats, Macedonians, Slovenes, Bosnian Muslims and other Slavs as far as I know. But the issue is not Slavic grammar just Nikola trying to explain it to you as you seem not to even speak the language. -- Igor 4:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Look, every word can have a) ethymology b) given meaning. You don't seem to like the ethymology of the word Bosniak, but somehow the ethymology of Muslim can be safely ignored because it's written in some languages with a capital M? --Vedran 22:14, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * This article says, and as you've not removed it I guess that you agree, that Bosniak was used for all residents of Bosnia. It could still be used in the same way today. Nikola 19:44, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I have neither the time nor patience for edit wars, I like to discuss things first.

Why have you then changed all Bosnian Muslims to Bosniaks before waiting for the discussion to end? Nikola 09:12, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I thought (wrongly) that noone could possibly deny the right of one nation to choose their own name. --Vedran


 * It is possible that the term Bosniak once meant the same as Bosnian, but it doesn't for a long time now. A person that uses that meaning should be corrected. Bosniak is sufficiently different from Bosnian in all languages AFAIK. Besides, I fail to see the relevance of this to our original discussion - whether pages mentioning Bosnian Muslims can be edited to mention Bosniaks if the events described there happened before 1993/Dayton. --Vedran 22:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * One could argue that if Serbs didn't accept this name the Agreement might not have been reached. Would it be right if I went to the Republika Srpska article and added a bunch of "so-called"s?


 * Dayton is not a retroactive agreement on history, just a political peace agreement which is, by the way, being violated as we speak and applied quite selectively when it comes to the Republika Srpska's rights. -- Igor 09:39, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Please, spare me from the politics. The question stands. I personally believe that Dayton was violated long ago. Thus Republika Srpska doesn't exist, it was never internationally recognized as a country, does that give me the right to claim so at this article? Or you believe that every such issue should be settled with an edit war, and he who has the fattest nerves wins? --Vedran 14:33, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * You brought up Dayton. As you said yourself, facts matter not what you believe, the Republika Srpska was recognized in Dayton as a separate enitity


 * And so were Bosniaks. --Vedran


 * just short of an independant country but with its own army, flag, constitution, parliament, president, judiciary etc. Dayton is being violated but that doesn't mean that breaking the law is OK. -- Igor 4:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * My point exactly. Bosniaks are part of the constitution, you can't break the constitution. See how nice it is to have you prove my points :) --Vedran 22:14, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * As for why Bosniaks decided for a new name, I was hoping to write it up if I found time, but that's not relevant as it is a fact today.
 * --Vedran 11:11, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I wish you the best of luck in that. -- Igor 09:39, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

-

Added a few lines on Bosniak national self-identification. The material is slightly modified paste from http://www.hercegbosna.org/engleski/dummies.html#nacija - being one of editors of the site, I'm authorized to do this.

M H


 * M.H., I'm starting to think that we need a separate article titled "Nations in Bosnia and Herzegovina" or "Ethnical history..." or something like that. That will enable us to delete much of the superfluous crap implanted in this and other articles, and to present facts in a thorough way. Your text can be a solid basis for something like that - although I disagree with some of the remarks it's a vast improvement over what we have now.
 * OK, but this is ambitious, and hardly an issue all interested "parties" will agree upon. Anyway- for starters, you may excise parts on Croats and Serbs & leave something on Bosniaks (or rephrase it, doesnt matter). Also-delete that Bogumil nonsense, since Bosnian Christians had never been associated with Bogumils, before the 19th cent. http://www.hercegbosna.org/ostalo/mitovi.html#bogu


 * M H


 * Ok, here is my concept:
 * Nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * I hope to see improvements and fixes :) --80.65.161.18 21:45, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Of course this was me *sigh* --Vedran 22:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * OK, but it needs to be polished.Mir Harven 23:01, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)Mir Harven

---

This crap about denial of national self-identification to Bosniaks (former Bosnian Muslims) got to stop. They (muslims who are native speakers of what is now called "central South Slavic diasystem") are officially called Bosnaks now. Their "genetic lineage" is irrelevant, since a great part of contemporary Bosnia's Bosniaks are of Croatian (I mean Croatia's Croatian) descent, because in the 17th and 18th century ca. 30-40% of muslim population of Bosnia was composed of immigrants who fled from newly liberated areas of Croatia (Lika, Dalmatia, Slavonia). Therefore, no need to ponder on ethnic origin of Bosniaks in Montenegro and Serbia (Sandžak), where there are ca. 250-300 k Bosniaks max, because the origin is irrelevant to a person's national self-identification. If Croatia's gvt. would like to press the question a bit more, there would be no Serbs in Croatia (ca. 200 k inhabitants), but "Vlachs". This ethno-genetic fiction is history. Be they of diffused "Bosnian", Croatian, Serbian, Hungarian, Turkish, Vlach, Albanian, ...whatever descent- they are now Bosniaks. Period. Mir Harven 14:18, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

User:Bosniak's version
Bosniaks (also spelled: Bosniacs; sometimes incorrectly refered to as Bosnian Muslims) are indigenous Slavic peoples of Bosnia. Up until the mid 19th century, the term Bosniak (natively: Bošnjaci) was used for all inhabitants of Bosnia regardles of faith.

In medieval Bosnia, Bosniaks were largely members of an indigenous Bosnian Church and were considered heretics by both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. As a result, some Bosniaks were forced to convert to Caholicism and Eastern Orthodox religions. During the Ottoman period (15th-19th century) mostly heretic Bosniaks in large numbers converted to Islam.

During the 19th century (Austro-Hungarian period), the Bosniaks of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths acquired Croatian and Serbian national identites and came to be known as Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs.

In terms of religion, today's Bosniaks are overhelmingly Sunni Muslims. Bosniaks are also considered to be one of the most secular European nations. Their mother tongue is Bosnian, which is one of three official languages of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosniaks are proud of their unique history, tradition, and European roots.

Most Muslim inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro and Croatia identify themselves ethnically as Bosniaks. It is important to note that not all of the Muslims of the Balkans are Bosniaks; Muslim Albanians, Turks, and Roma and Sinti also live on the Balkan Peninsula.

The earliest known inhabitants of the area now known as Bosnia and Herzegovina were the Illyrians, who spoke a language related to modern Albanian. The Romans conquered Illyria after a series of wars, and Latin-speaking settlers from all over the empire settled among the Illyrians. The Roman province of Dalmatia included Herzegovina and most of Bosnia, and a strip of northern Bosnia, south of the Sava River, was part of the province of Pannonia. Modern Albanians trace their ancestry to the ancient Illyrians, and the Vlachs, a historically nomadic people who live throughout the Balkans, speak a language derived from Latin, and are thought to be the descendants of Roman settlers and Romanized Illyrians.

The Germanic Goths conquered Roman Dalmatia in the 5th Century, and later the Alans, who spoke an Iranian language, and the Turkic Huns and Avars passed through what is now Bosnia. These invaders left few linguistic traces, and whatever remnant populations were left behind were absorbed by the Slavic wave that was to follow.

Slavs settled in Bosnia, Herzegovina, and the surrounding lands, which were then part of the Eastern Roman Empire, in the 7th century. The Slavic Bosniaks settled settled sometime after the first wave of Slavs; The Serb settled in what is now central Serbia, and Croats established a kingdom in what is now central Croatia. Bosniaks established their own Bosnian kingdom between the 12th and the 15th century. The final Turkish conquest in 1463 marked the end of an independent Bosnia and the beginning of the influence of Islamic Civilization.

As the Ottoman Empire began to contract after the defeat at Vienna in 1683, many Muslim refugees from the lost Ottoman territories in Croatia, Slavonia, Hungary, and, later, Serbia found refuge in Bosnia, and were assimilated into the local Bosniak population.

In 1878, Bosnia and Herzegovina were occupied and administered by Austria-Hungary and a number of Bosniaks left Bosnia and Herzegovina. Official Austro-Hungarian records show that 56,000 people emigrated between 1883 and 1920, but the number of emigrants is probably larger, as they don't reflect emigration before 1883, and don't include those who left without permits. One geographer estimates that there are now over 5 million descendants of Bosniaks in Turkey, although that figure includes the descendants of Bosniaks who emigrated from Serbia and Montenegro as well. Another wave of emigration occurred after the end of the First World War, when Bosnia and Herzegovina became part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, known after 1929 as Yugoslavia.

In an attempt to assimilate Bosniaks into Serbs and Croats, in 1968 Yugoslav communists recognized Bosniaks as Muslims "in national sense." In September 1993, after decades of communist Yugoslav oppression and denial of Bosniak nation, the Congress of Bosniak Intellectuals in war torn Sarajevo reafirmed Bosniak identity and returned the historic term Bosniak to Bosniaks.

Bosniaks constitute 48% of Bosnia-Herzegovina's post war population (CIA FactBook). Large Bosniak populations also live in Serbia and Montenegro, Western European Countries, the United States of America, Canada, and Australia. The largest urban populations of Bosniaks in the Balkans can be found in Sarajevo, Tuzla, Zenica, Bihac, Mostar, Novi Pazar, and Belgrade; Abroad Saint Louis, followed by New York, Chicago, Toronto, and Vancouver.

Muslims by nationality
I think it's necessary to note that the problem of limited interchangeability of terms in historic (pre-1994) context is now further exacerbated by the existence of the page for Muslims by nationality. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   22:30, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Hopefully fixes in Muslims by nationality as well as my new writeup (The Struggle for Recognition) will help clarify. Please comment :) Vedran 10:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bosniak emigration to Turkey
From the article: "Official Austro-Hungarian records show that 56,000 people emigrated between 1883 and 1920, but the number of emigrants is probably larger, as the official record doesn't reflect emigration before 1883, nor include those who left without permits." Mustafa Imamovic in his History of Bosniaks mentions around 150,000 of emigrants. He also says that the number of Muslims declined from 38.73% in 1879. to 32.25% in 1910. An encyclopedia gives total population of 1,158,164 in 1879. and 1,898,044 in 1910. This seems to put the number somewhere between 75,000 and 125,000. Vedran 17:18, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm, interesting. Turkey's population increased 5.34 fold since 1929 so there could very well be around 534,000 "Bosniaks" in Turkey today. Asim Led 18:21, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits by Asim Led
What's the difference between "Folklore" and "Tradition and Customs"?

What is supposed to be under "Contributions to humanity", we already have "Famous Bosniaks"?

BTW thanks Joy / Shallot for the fixes. Vedran 09:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I think those new headings are from WikiProject Ethnic Groups, like the new orange box... I also agree that they should be merged better with the existing content. The boilerplate doesn't have to be catered to 100%, the content is important. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   10:33, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * If you don't think it fits feel free to take out "Contributions to humanity".. I was just trying to model the page after more complete articles on ethnic groups such as Serbs and Basques, but if you think it doesn't belong I have no problem with that. As for folklore and traditions and costums, traditions and costums I see as things like cuisine, national dress, traditional art, etc. Folklore I see as an overview of the role things such as Nasrudin Hodza, Derzelez Alija, and Kulin Ban play, traditional stories, etc. etc. Asim Led 15:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
This page still needs improvement. First, I think it's rather unbalanced (in technical sense) as its first part is very short & incomplete while the "History" part is IMO way too long (read: boring).

Re the flag: my understanding is that the flag is more a symbol of SDA political party and Bosniak nationalists rather than the symbol which all Bosniaks identify themselves with. I'm not going to touch it, of course, but I'd appreciate few comments (especially from Vedran, who declares himself an atheist).

The part on Folklore, Traditions and Customs needs much enhancement. When will someone Finally write an article on Sevdalinka? I'd really like to see it. Also, the things mentioned by Asim.

--Duja 15:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, I've written a stub on Sevdalinka; I hope someone more knowledgeable will expand it. --Duja 15:10, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Duja you raise some good points. Regarding the "unbalanced" part, yeah true, and of course the first half isn't complete yet, I mean it just appeared 3 days ago, but trying to condense the bottom half seems like asking for disaster. I think maybe pictures would make things more bearable. Regarding the flag, (btw I'm an atheist as well) yeah I'm certain that's the Bosniak national flag. It was taken from a very trustworthy site, and the SDA flag does look similar but it's different (SDA flag has SDA written in big block letters next to the crescent). Now granted I never knew about it, and most Bosniaks identify more with the old republic flag, but that seems to be the actual thing. Asim Led 16:07, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I thought the lillies were the main emblem, too. A picture of them would probably be useful either way. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   17:13, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Re: Flag: The green flag with crescent is the traditional Bosniak flag and it's in use since the middle ages. I can find some sources for this if you want. There's nothing "Muslim" in the religious sense about this flag or the green color, and Turkish flag as we all know is red, so I don't see why Bosniaks couldn't identify with it.
 * The blue shield with lillies is the coat of arms of the Kotromanics family - and thus the medieval Bosnian kingdom. It was used 1992-1996 as the flag of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Again there's nothing about it that isn't acceptable to Serbs or Croats except that it signifies something they were fighting against. So I think it would be incorrect to call it a Bosniak flag, it's an old flag of B&H. Vedran 16:34, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * We could lose some of the historical part, but if it's gonna lead to stupid simplifications like claiming that Muslims are a different nation from Bosniaks then I'm sorry but we need it all. I'm willing to listen if you have a simpler way of explaining the Bosniak -> Muslim -> "undetermined" -> Muslim -> Bosniak transition that occured in 20th century. Vedran 16:41, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm objecting more to the first parts of "History" section. Some 70% of it belongs to more appropriate & general History of Bosnia and Herzegovina topic. What is really relevant to this topic is the part on 20th century, when "real" national emancipation took place (I'm not trying to say that Bosniaks are a 20th century invention btw, but I don't think one can really speak about "Bosniak nation" during Ottoman times either). Some material from medieval times should be retained, of course, especially the issue/dispute on the origins of Islamized people. --Duja 12:57, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * If it's (re)moved to avoid duplication, then it should be replaced with prominent links to the Bosnian history page and the nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina page, because this chronology is very relevant to the genesis of the nation. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

Does anyone have any evidence to back up the unofficial bosniak flag? The crescent and stars one? I didn't see any of those while I was there this summer... --Key45 23:46, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unreliable figures
The figures for Bosnika population, given in the tabel, are very unreliable (to say the least). The number in BH is ca. 1.8 M max (considering les than 100,000 in RS and 1,7 M in Federation)-which can be seen in pdf document in Federation bureau of stats: http://www.fzs.ba. The number for Croatia would be ca. 40,000, since Muslims are counted as Bosniaks (a dispute over census), while the number in Turkey is completely superfluous (and "imaginative"), becasue these people are Turks now. It would be just like adding some 50 M Americans of German extraction to the number of Germans. This part of the text is seriously flawed and I suggest that it should be corrected. Mir Harven 07:04, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * These are link and figures: :http://www.fzs.ba/Dem/ProcPrist/stalno.pdf


 * Evaluation on 31.12.2003.


 * FEDERACIJA BiH
 * FEDERATION OF B&H
 * All/2.323.339 Bos./1.694.000 Cro./501.432 Serb./105.091 Other./22.816


 * Very well, although asides from the inclusion of Turkey I don't see what's so horrible about them. Asim Led 17:03, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Well-in situation when one counts thousands (63 k in Montenegro, if I recall correctly), 100 or 200 k plus or minus in BH is simply irresponsible. Second, much more serious-aside from Turkey ? Yeah, that's the point. What kind of bizarre demographics it is, anyway ? Mir Harven 18:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * There is a slight difference between Montenegro, where a census took place this year, compared to Bosnia where since the war we have been left with nothing but estimates, and that is what the statistics provided by the RS and federation are. - Asim Led 19:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * OK-then now add all parts, and-what will you get ? It is estimated that ca. 600.000- 800.000 Serbs left BH, Serbia, Croatia,..for NZ, Australia, US, Germany, France,.., and are not recorded in sum total of all Serbs. Not to speak about Croats with vast diaspora. Essentially-there are now ca. 2-2.1 M Bosniaks and that's it. Free play with figures is, I'd say, not the way to gain credibility. Mir Harven 09:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I have to ask what wikipedia pages you are using as precedent because the articles on Jews, Basques, and yes, even Serbs like you mentioned all count their Diaspora. Even the page on Croats goes on about it, although it doesn't have a table.


 * And then let's add all the various parts. 1.8 million in Bosnia. 200,000 in Serbia and Montenegro. With the rest of the former Yugoslavia we get about 2.05 million. If you add in the Bosniak communities outside the Balkans that should get you about 2.4 easily. Asim Led 14:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Just because others do it that doesn't make it implicitly right :) The taxobox introduced by the WikiProject for ethnic groups is way too deterministic for the issue of diasporas.
 * In the case of the Croats, it would be almost impossible to fill it in because there's a lot of people who don't even know the language or even people whose parents don't even know it that participate in the activities of Croatian diaspora. How to decide which of those and how many of them to include in the statistics? It's a slippery slope. I already had to revert some overzealous editor in this regard...
 * Also excuse me while I snicker at the very mention of the Serbs page being a decent example... it tends to get vandalized (almost as much as the infamous list of Croatians) and has been known to include various dubious statements at best. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   17:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to start any arguements, but I respectfully disagree with yours and Mir Harven's view on the issue. Personal experience and very strong communal feeling show that the overwhelming majority of the Bosniak diaspora are indeed Bosniaks, and not Americans or Swedes or whatever. Really, if theyre not Bosniaks then what are they. Americans? Swedes? Such descriptions would be far less accurate and insulting to many of them. Thousands of them visit the country every year, they have often played a considerable role in its development, and many plan to return. The Bosniak situation is also considerably different because 95% of them left the country only in the past 15 years or so. Are there some (usually children) who dont speak the language? Yes. Are there some that arent very involved with their home country? Yes. But to deny the existance of the few hundred thousand Bosniaks outside of the Balkans under the circumstances, and especially when many other articles about ethnicity do exactly the same, is simply wrong. Asim Led 19:01, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It's one thing to have a clearly linked recent emigration and an old diaspora. If you can produce numbers for the former, by all means, go on. This decade's censa should be useful in that regard. My comment was oriented towards the vague stuff used as a precedent. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   19:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Number in MN
Someone reduced the figure of Bosniaks in Montenegro - I restored to the official census number of 63,000, and was wondering if it shouldn't also include the 29,000 Muslims by nationality - which makes the total more consistent with the pre-war number. C.F Demographic_history_of_Montenegro


 * Actually Igor updated Montenegro with the same numbers quoting some .yu web site... I didn't verify myself, but it didn't look like a mistake. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   02:33, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Recent changes by Jugoslaven
Three points have been the topic of this edit war, and I agree with Asim Led that Jugoslaven needs to substantiate his changes, since:


 * Bosniaks have officially decided on Bosnian, obsoleting Serbo-Croatian
 * Bosnian did not cease to be mostly mutually intelligible with its south Slavic neighbours; in fact, it's ludicrous to try to revert this change and imply that it's all the same, and at the same time avoid saying that it's all rather similar
 * Meša Selimović was a Bosnian Muslim before he became a naturalized Serb, and all such people are considered to belong to Bosniak heritage

Jugoslaven, please don't leave the "edit summary" field empty and then insist on your edits. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   23:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Janissaries continued until early 19th century
I don't know how such an obvious mistake was made but it was. I am talking about Ottoman army becoming a full professional army and "Janissary" becoming only a title in the middle of 17th Century. This could not have been further from the truth. The Janissary system continued until early 19th century and it took a small civil war and an executed sultan to get rid of it. Ottoman army was never all professional, but Janissaries themselves were professional soldiers although not necessarily by choice initially. Why is there such a long section on Janissaries in an article about Bosniaks and why it contains these obvious errors, it is hard to understand.

genetics
I assume this research refers to the same thing Dragan Primorac has been talking about recently. If so, the statement:


 * As it stands, current studies have shown that, genetically, Bosniaks are largely indigenous and have a large fraction of the ancient gene pool distinctive for the Balkan area.

This statement is fairly tendentious and premature, given that the researchers still found that many Slavic peoples are "largely similar". Also, it lacks a discussion on whether it was the Persian, Alan genes of the ancient nomadic tribes described as predecessors to the Croats and Serbs that had mixed with the Illyrians which makes up the "bulk" of the current gene pool.

Interestingly enough, one can also find a tendentious discussion of related issues at Jat (people). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that this is the same study that Primorac has recently talked about. I admit I'm no expert on genetics, but as for that line you quoted I just slightly rephrased a line from the actual study. The actual line said that all three groups had a "large fraction of the ancient gene pool distinctive for the Balkan area", but since this is an article about Bosniaks I wasn't sure whether it was necessary to mention the other two groups in the concluding sentence.


 * I think it's necessary to give such statements a modicum of context. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * As for the Persian/Alan/Slavic genes, I'm not 100% sure, but they were mentioned in discussions about the findings. I'm not sure how those factors could form the "bulk" of the current gene pool when the "dinaric" sub-halo group has such a high frequency (71%, 44%). It makes much more sense that the "ancient nomaditc tribes described as predecessors to the Croats and Serbs" were numerically far smaller than the Illyrians and other indigenous people, and that they merely culturally and linguistically assimilated them.


 * I can't figure out what exactly I meant from that sentence, but in an attempt to reconstruct it :) I noticed the word "ancient" - when talking about this study this kind of a word is confusing because most of the referenced groups are ancient. I think that was what I was aiming at - both the Illyrians and the Alans could have been ancient. And the Slavs too. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * Also, could you further explain what you said abount how "many Slavic peoples are 'largely similar'" and how this applies to Bosniaks. Thanks. I'll check out the article you mentioned later as well. Asim Led 17:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This was another reflection on the lack of context, I think. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * "Known", eh? :)) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * I would like a peer review and NPOV-check done on the information on genetic studies that is currently included in the Bosniaks article. Alexander 007 08:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Correction of Bosniak
Ok Joy I've made some necessary modifications to the article, this will help make things clearer, and I think it looks quite well now.

Greetings...

Expired picture datum
We should re-new the pictures of famous bosniaks, as for now you can't even see who they are. It says that the pictures have expired when clicking on them, so measures should be taken at once and the pictures should be re-newed.

Thank you..

recent anonymous changes
The recent repetitive edits about "ethnic Bosnians" and the whole Bogomil theory are not encylopedic - a similar theme has been tried at Bosnian Church but there has not been a single shred of corroboration.

I'm reluctant to vprotect the page right now, but it can be done in the future. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   17:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as i can tell, the changes are both by anonymi (to conjur a plural), and by User:The Truth Now. Either way, they indeed seem frequent enough to keep a protection handy. --The Minister of War 18:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it'd be a shame to protect the article just because of one user's vandalism. Live Forever 19:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for current change - Attempt for consensus
Obviously the original religion is a point of disagreement, so i put that into the intro as a temporary compromise solution. And so i suggest we leave the text as is for the moment, until we reach consensus on the content.

As for a possible consensus, let me start off with a few points.
 * The original religion of Bosniaks is in principle encyclopedic, and should, imho, be valid for inclusion on the article, with a few things in mind
 * It should be better documented and referenced
 * It is not relevant for the current use of the term Bosniak, and should imho not be placed in the intro.

Because the term Bosniak is used loosely and widely as simply 'of Islamic descent', their original religion seems, to me, to be mainly of historical interest. Perhaps a section along those lines should be added further down.

One general note though: we all know the sensitivities of editing stuff like this. Literature on any topic, written by any source concerning former Yugoslavia is bound to be at least somewhat POV. Lets try to keep it civil and not include all kinds of things in the article before ít has been discussed here. --The Minister of War 12:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The "original religion of Bosniaks" is discussed later in the article. The medieval history subsection has a good paragraph or so on the subject of the Bosnian church, the presence of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and the Bogomil theory. The subject is covered adequately and in a NPOV matter: there really shouldn't be any problem here. A debate or compromise isn't necessary here because it's a clear case of right and wrong. The anonymous user, and his various identities, are doing little more than vandalizing a perfectly fine introduction. Furthermore, this user has repeatedly personally insulted me and violated basic rules of Wikipedia (See User talk:Emir_Arven) The user should be punished for his disruptive behavior and the article should be returned to the way it was. Simple as that. Live Forever 19:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it's vital to keep a cool head in an editing dispute. I agree there shouldnt be a problem here but would like to hear what other users - who evidently disagree with us both on this - have to say. I have read your talk page, but you're not the only one - read mine.
 * This discussion will, if we dont let it descend into terms of "punishment" and "right and wrong", end up in one of two scenarios:
 * Clear arguments will be summed up to change the introduction OR
 * The claims of those users will be found baseless
 * I suggest we give them their shot, and encourage them to make claims here. Even if you think you're right - especially if you think you're right - you should let those users reveal their good intentions; or as the case may be, malicious intent. --The Minister of War 20:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Seeing as they still haven't responded, could we switch to the original now? Live Forever 19:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well at least it drove them away :-) Should we really change? The current version seems pretty decent too imho. but chage if you will. --The Minister of War 10:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Several anon changes have completely changed the face of this article, trying to sell the unconfirmed theses on "bogomilism" and "nativeness" and deleting both the data on pre-Slavic population and christianization of Orthodoxes and Catolics. This is a hoax difficult to cope with. I'm not a Bosniak, but I don't try to deny Bosniak nationality nor to oppose reasonable theories on the origin, but this is going too far. We're having anon nationalists trying to establish, paraphrasing, "Bosniak origin from amoebas". Generally, I hesitate to edit other nation's pages, but this time I'll make an exception and revert to the version that stuck around for quite a while and which is IMO reasonable.Duja 09:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina stub
Just to leave a note to watchers of this page that there is an ongoing vote about the form of BiH stub template here. Please vote if you're interested. Duja 08:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Dobri Bosnjani
Emir, any source about "Dobri Bosnjani"? Sounds more like a myth to me. Duja 19:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind taking that out either, since the actual situation in the middle ages is discussed in full just a little bit more down. Honestly I think we need to come up with a brand new concise introductory paragraph period. Asim Led 20:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Me neither. Nikola 12:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

As Emir this time asked nicely, I will respond nicely. In what is sometimes called Central South Slavic diasystem, there are several ways to create name for residents of a territory from the name of the territory. One is by adding -ac: Kuba/Kubanac, Portugalija/Portugalac, Amerika/Amerikanac, Bosna/Bosanac. Another one is by adding -'nin: Irak/Iracanin, Dakija/Dacanin, Trakija/Tracanin, Bosna/Bosnjanin. So you can see that Bosnjanin means exactly the same thing as Bosanac. Nikola 12:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Census data
I added relevant censa data (for few countries) and cited the references in order to calm down ongoing revert war. Duja 14:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Bracketed figures in SCG refer to those who stated "Muslims by Nationality". Most of those probably belong to Bosniak ethnic corpus. (Note that this is probably not so for Macedonia, which also contains significant Slav Muslim minorities not directly related with Bosniaks).
 * A footnote should be added to Serbia entry, stating that the figures exclude Kosovo. I don't know how to do that technically though.
 * I don't mind if anyone rounds the nubmers; it was more convenient for me to cut and paste.

Figure for Germany looks overrated; Official German Statistic Office gives 160,000 of foreigners originating from BiH. Assuming Bosniaks take approx. 1/3 of those, adding unknown number of Bosniaks originating from Yugoslavia, as well as German citizens of Bosniak origin, 180,000 still looks faraway. Any othe sources? Duja 14:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe many of the figures provided are outdated. The figure of 180,000 probably comes from the large influx of refugees during the mid 1990s. Since then, many of them have come back to Bosnia. As for the number of Bosniaks in Germany today, I'd say its closer to 100,000 (More than 1/3rd of foreigners originating from BiH in Germany are Bosniaks). Live Forever 23:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Not just that: the ethnic statistics of USA shows no Bosniaks in Bosnia. Could someone explain that? HolyRomanEmperor 21:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

BOSNIAKS ARE ILLYRIANS
Bosniacs are a descended from Illyrians and South Slavic. Slavs brought language,that mixed with old Illyrian language and become Bosnian. Romans and Greeks called Bosniac land - Bosnium, Bissena, Bosnia, Bosova, Bassinus. In late 11th century Bosnian Kingdom has been established. They called themselves Good Bosnians, in old Bosnian: "Dobri Bošnjani". Religiously speaking, the majority of Bosniaks are Sunni Muslims, but in 11th-15th century,they had their own church: Bosnian church, that was mix of Orthodox Church (typical for Slavs) and Pagan religion (typical for Illyirans). &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.92.227.210 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC).


 * So, please, give to us some linguistic proofs for your claim. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The claim that really stands out in anonymous' paragraph is that the Bosnian language represents a creole of an early South Slavic language and the Illyrian language. I have seen no such claim in any linguistic work. Alexander 007 08:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Poslednje izmene
Dakle, ove ilirske izmene se kod nas tretiraju kao deo price o Srbima i amebama; preko toga, lose su pismene. Bez sumnje da u tome ima odredjenog smisla, molio bih ostale (Dado, Emir...) da ustanove da li im je prihvatljivo da to ovde stoji ili ne. Ako jeste, necu vise pipati. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hm. Izgleda da mi revert nije uspeo, ali vidim da je Asim uradio isto... --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Supporting discussion contribution 21
I am most fond of contribution 21, surely one of, if not the most considered contribution ever made on this discussion.

New theories
damir, this is not a place to try new theories or to support them. It is about consensus that exists among historians. On the other hand u can write a new section called "New theories about Illyrian roots" or smth like that. --Emir Arven 15:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Bosniak diaspora
Someone should research a little on the diaspore which seems a bit underestimated. Germany is an exapmle. HolyRomanEmperor 17:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, I was wrong; 155 973 Bosnians lived in Germany accoding on 31 december 2004:. HolyRomanEmperor 17:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)´

Medieval Bosnia/Bosnjnani(Bosniaks)
The population of preottoman bosnia were called Bosnjani. Kotromanic, Kulin and so on all declared themselves as kings of bosnia and bosnjani. There are letters that show this. Damir Mišić 18:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Kulin Ban U svojoj Povelji Dubrovčanima 1332. godine on piše: "....Ako ima Dubrovčanin koju pravdu na Bošnjaninu,da ga pozove pred gospodina bana...". Ovo je vrlo značajan dokument, jer govori da u Bosni žive jedino Bošnjani i niko drugi (naziv "Bošnjani"je starinski naziv za Bošnjake)Damir Mišić 20:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Poznata je krilatica "Od Kulina Bana i dobrijeh dana"... koja ima svoju potporu u činjenici da Bosna za vrijeme Kulina Bana ekonomski prosperira baš trgujući sa Dubrovnikom... a u tome vremenu nastaje i najstariji pronađeni Bosanski državni dokument, poznat pod nazivom "POVELJA BOSANSKOGA BANA KULINA", a koji datira iz 1189. godine i predstavlja neku vrstu trgovačkog ugovora sa Dubrovčanima. U ovom dokumentu po prvi put neko, u ovom slučaju Kulin Ban, kaže da je Bosna nezavisna država sa svojim narodom, vladarom itd. U ovo doba kada se i hrišćanstvo dijeli na pravoslavlje i katoličanstvo, Bošnjani se nežele priključiti rimokatoličkoj ili grčko-pravoslavnoj crkvi. Mjesto toga oni osnivaju Bosansku Crkvu koja većinom slijedi bogumilska učenja. Bogumilstvo je bilo posebna vrsta hrišćanstva u kojem se rane Isusa Hrista gledaju samo kao simbolične, moli se klanjanjem 5 puta na dan, zabranjuje se ikonografija i mnoge druge raznolikosti od normanlog hrišćanstva. Vijest o da su Bošnjani prihvatili bogumilsku vjeru pa i organizovali vjersku instituciju koja je slijedi i postaje centar bogumilstva u svijetu sa time što se govorilo čak da postoji "bogumislki Papa" u Bosni nije sa dobrotom primljena u Rimu.Damir Mišić 20:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

slike: http://www.cin.ba/Photos/P2_Culture/images/p2c_kulinban.JPG http://bosnjaci.net/foto/BiH1-povelja_bosanskoga_bana_kulina_big.jpg Damir Mišić 20:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Damir, some users have scanned to show the letters since Tvrtko and they all show Kralj Srbljem i Bosnu; either meaning Kings of Serbs and Bosnia or Kings of Serbia and Bosnia. HolyRomanEmperor 14:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * To ti nije iz 1332. povelja (Kulin je već tada odavno preminuo) :) HolyRomanEmperor 14:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, only one letter says "king of serbs and Bosnia" and that is the letter from Tvrtko Kotromanic at the time when he helped the nemanjic dinasty to build up serbia and become free from hungarians. In the same letter Komtromanic says about Bosnia "Bosnia is a country of it's own free from serbia and croatia, in Bosnia a people of its own live and they decide over themselves"....Damir Mišić 15:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Please tell me these "users" by name Damir Mišić 15:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I wrote the year wrong it suppose to be in the 1100th century.Damir Mišić 15:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

These are the scanned documents: Stephen Tvrtko as King of Serbs, Bosnia, the Seaside and the Western Areas and his parents of Serb nobility; Stephen Dabisha as King of Serbs, Bosnia, the Seaside, the Hum, the Lower Edges, the Western Areas, Usora, Soli, Podrinje; Stephen Ostoja as King of Serbs, Bosnia, the Seaside, the Hum, the Western Areas, the Lower Edges, Usora, Soli and Podrinje; Stephen Ostojić inherited the throne from his Serb ancestors; Stephen Tvrtko II as King of Serbs, Bosnia, the Seaside and the Hum; Stephen Tomaš as King of Serbs, Bosnia, the Seaside, the Hum, the Lower Edges, Usora, Soli, Podrinje and the Western Areas. HolyRomanEmperor 11:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

As for the Kulin Ban; it is correct. Kulin noted his subjects as Bošnjani. HolyRomanEmperor 11:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Fact is that half of the "kings" you have provided above weren't even bosnian kings for example Stephen Ostojic, he was never king of bosnia. Damir Mišić

The reliablity of the sources you have provided may very well be disputed since they all are memberstripod webpages, that is by other words private amateuristic websites. But however suggesting these sources and statements are correct, it does not mean anything that SOME (most didn't) of the kings proclaimed themselves as kings of serbs, this was due to multiple marriges between different kings and queens from different countries even between bosnia and serbia. I was not often in those days that any king or queen was completly from one country in heritage.Damir Mišić 12:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

That they declared themselves as kings of serbia may also be explained by the fact that after tvrtko helped serbs build up a kingdom free of hungarians it became sort of a rule that any bosnian king from tvrtko and so on would be declared as the kings of serbs but not serbia since they didn't have any terretorial rights to the serb land but they did have rights against the serbian people. So when the kings declared themselves as kings of bosnia this ment Kings of the bosnian people (bosnjani) and as well kings of Bosnia (terretorial), and with the part "kings of serbs" only the people and not the terretory. Easily explained they were the despots over serbia. Damir Mišić 11.00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes; you are completly correct. I only noted that because you said that there was only one letter. HolyRomanEmperor 16:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * About the Bošnjani part; it is sad that we kept only one edict, and that of Kulin Ban which, if you haven't noticed, calls himself as the Bosnian Ban and his subjects Bošnjani. HolyRomanEmperor 16:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am afraid I have absolutly no idea what you meant when you mentioned that Tvrtko helped the Serbs build uo a kingdom free of Hungarians... Could you elaborate that part a bit for me? HolyRomanEmperor 16:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You could throw a look at Stephen Tomašević too: Стефан Томашевић. HolyRomanEmperor 17:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually Kulin Bans povelja is just one of many letters and instances where the nationality Bosnjanin is expressed. Another good example are the Franciscans, who mention Bosnjani as the adherents of the bosnian church, during their travels in bosnia. So composly said there are many letters and instances of bosnjani as the inhabitants of bosnia in the middleages - the most famous is, I guess, Kulin Bans povelja. Damir Mišić 00:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As for the part of "helping build up serbia", I will not elaborate into details but Kotromanic assisted serbia in its independence from hungary - giving him the "privilegeum" of calling himself king of serbia as well. Damir Mišić 00:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Certainly. There are numerious mentions of Bošnjani. For that second part; Serbia had a vast Empire that died out with the extinction of its dynasty, several years before Tvrtko's crowning. There was no need to free from Hungary since Hungary didn't rule Serbia. Tvrtko created his rodoslov where he reffered to himself as son of Vladislav son of Elizabeth daughter of Stefan Dragutin describing his connection to the Nemanjic title; and legal heritage to the claim over the Serb people. That was the reason. HolyRomanEmperor 21:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

2.5 million Bosniaks in Turkey!??!?
Please provide source. Antidote 23:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you read carefully it does not say 2.5 million but 350.000 - 2.500.000. This is already written in the article under "bosniaks today". Damir Mišić 00:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Why does this type of estimate get included in the official census data template on the right? I don't see the sources. It just says "newly found documents." A lot of people can make claims like these. Antidote 08:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

well I don't know who claimed that but it has been in the article for some good time, meaning it has to be widely accepted by users. Estimates should also be counted in to the total population like in the articles about Irish people and english people. Damir Mišić 13:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice it "being in the article for some good time", and even if it were (which I doubt), it still needs to be backed up by some sources.Duja
 * Why you keep on adding this nonsense about "Latin Bosniaque and German Bosnian"? Is it supposed to mean something? Duja 14:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The latin and germanic is just a pure lingustic explination, by the way if you are intressted in speculations please pay a visit to the serb article. It's full of myths and lies signed with the mentality of mladic, milosevic and karadzic with the blood of 8000 humans on their hands. Damir Mišić 14:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And where is the documented number of Bosniaks in Turkey? I am not denying that a Bosniak exodus to Turkey happened, chiefly in 1910s, but you 1) keep on inserting unproved figures and 2) after near a century living in Turkey and speaking Turkish language, what do you think has happened with their national identification? Today, a great portion of them today are merely "Turks with Bosnian roots". Duja 15:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you pinpoint some specifics in Serbs article (preferrably, in that article's talk page)? And what has that article has to do with this one? Duja 15:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of the number of Bosniaks in Turkey today. On the internet there are websites and forums regarding the issue of Bosniaks in Turkey. Feel free to do some research on google or whatever. Regarding the numbers of Bosniaks in Turkey you will probably find most of it on forums where people mostly Turks and Bosniaks talk about the Bosniak origin of Turks. Numbers range from 300,000 - 5 million Turks with somewhat Bosniak origin maybe one ancestor maybe several. Note, this is written by Turks who live in Turkey and who have learned about this in school regarding the Ottoman withdrawl from the Balkans and the arrival of Bosniak and Albanian immigrants. Also, these people know other people with Bosniak ancestory and they can also name places and neighbourhoods within Turkey where many Bosniaks settled when they arrived and still live today e.g. parts of Istanbul, Izmir, Bursa etc. - Zec 16:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't mind – quite the opposite – including that info in the article. Someone should dig out some real research data though. However, I oppose the "counting blood cells" method (see e.g. Talk:Ivan Gundulić) – if there were e.g. 300,000 Bosniak emmigrants to Turkey in 1920, with some simple math and reasonable assumptions that many of them mixed with "native" Turks, one can easily get the number of several millions of their descendents. The question is, do they identify as Bosniaks today and how many of them do? How many are aware of their Bosniaks origins? I don't know how the Turkish census counts ethnicities though, but some official estimates would be really welcome. Duja 16:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is something I hope goes under real research data Bosniacs in Turkey I'm assuming the "counting blood cells" method was not used. Anyways, I can reveal the site says the Bosniak minority in Turkey numbers 1 million people. - Zec 18:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Zec thank you :) that counts as real source; it is even an offical organisation investigation homepage note the ".org". Changing demographics +1000000 Damir Mišić 18:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone has asked me to comment on a link and website that claims the number of Bosniaks in Turkey. As much as I would like to know how many Bosniaks are in Turkey I would like for that number to be accurate and not a guess. A site that was provided has some serious credibility issues. As I have pointed out to Damir as well, if a website is pushing maps like this as depicting Republika Srpska as part of Serbia (Which is not the first time I've seen it; which is a nationalistic concoction being dragged around to push certain agenda and not merely just noting areas where Serbs are in majority) and while it classifies Serbs and Croats as minority (while technically correct but officially they are constituent people), such site deserves a second look and a critical eye. Furthermore I was unable to find any information about the site's official capacity and how it found information on numbers of Bosniak minority in Turkey except that it uses extension .org as its credibility (every schmuck can register that extension). Unless there is a secondary source to confirm this one I am against using this website as a sole source for this topic.--Dado 15:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That is an ethnic-majority map (cf. Albanians) rather than political one, but the general problem with that site is that it doesn't offer really much information about anything. The minorities (and "minorities") are listed all right, but the information within templates is scarce, and the taxonomy is bad; more than half of the data about any minority is marked with question marks. It lacks the key data about political status, history, self-determination, origin etc. I don't think that Serbs (and Croats) in Bosnia should be listed as "minority". I concur that it's not the best site to be used as reference. Duja 15:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Linguistic and "linguistic"
Damir, would you please explain the motive of (as usual) persistent including of:
 * "Bosnian" is the germanic word for the inhabitant of Bosnia (Bosnians - Bosnia), the latin word is "Bosniaque" - Bosniak - Bosnia.


 * 1) It is incorrect. "Bosniaque" is a French word, and it is not Latin but a Romance language. AFAIK suffix -que did not exist in Latin, but it's specifically French. English is not entirely Germanic language, and, AFAIK, English suffix -ian is of Romance (Norman) root rather than Germanic (-er). (Yes it is )
 * 2) The second part of it (word is "Bosniaque" - Bosniak - Bosnia.) is incomprehensible. These are three words as I see.
 * 3) Even if it were correct, what is it supposed to mean? I could insert a factually correct sentence saying "Bosniaks are human beings" or "šljiva is Bosnian word for plum", or "中文 is the word for Bosniaks in Chinese", but an article is supposed to talk about relevant things, and I fail to see one in your edit. Duja 12:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ROMANCE LANGUAGES ARE NEW LATIN LANGUAGES, YOU KNOW THAT. Damir Mišić

(Moved from User Talk:Duja):
 * In Italian and spanish Bosnian is called Bosniaco, in French Bosnian Is called Bosniaque (pronounced Bosniak). Now fench,spanish and italian are latin languages whereas english is a germanic. Bosniak is derived from the latin version of bosnian. stop disturbing the article please. Damir Mišić 12:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah I see what you're aiming at. So, please find it in any etymologic dictionary and leave us a link. According to that theory, I suppose "Pljevljak" is derived from Plievliaque, "Krusevljak" from Krusevliaque and "zemljak" from zemliaque etc. If you try hard enough, you might have find an etymology in Ancient Greek, I suppose? Duja 12:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't make fun of me I do believe you have more sense than that. I am correct and you are just a wikipedia reverter without sources Damir Mišić 12:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you cared to use the sophisticated engine called Google, you would have found that the Latin word is "Bosniacum", (apart from lilium Bosniacum, mentioned on few maps and plant species). I didn't learn Latin, but it appears that -(i)cum is a common adjective suffix (google e.g. Croaticum, Germanicum). Since no one denies that the term Bosnia was in use since Ancient Ages, it is normal that Bosniacum was an adjective of Bosnia. Now we can discuss whether word "Bošnjak" has Bosniacum in root or if it is based on -jak (Slavic?) suffix like in Pljevljak – possibly -jak was derived from -iacum after all. Now that we went through this little linguistic adventure, can you stress what new information that sentence provides? (cf. my digressions on plums and Chinese above). Duja 13:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well you must agree that Bosniaque/Bosniaco are new romance language variants(latin) and that Bosnian/Bosnier are germanic versoins, if you doubt this just check out the italian,spanish,german,english,french articles on Bosnians and you will see this. ¨ Then what information this really provides may be discussed, I thought it would be useful to have it in the article in a purely lingustic purpous. Damir Mišić 18:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following
Fact is that the population of preottoman Bosnia-Hercegovina is reffered to in many medieval instances, charters and letters as Bošnjani'', the word for "Bosniaks/Bosnians" in old Bosnian language. A well famous example of this is the statehood charter of Bosnian ruler Ban Kulin from the 11th century where he declares his subjects as "Bošnjani". Another famous example are the Franciscans who, during their travels in Bosnia, declared the adherents of the indigenous Bosnian Church as "Bošnjani".''

I find this pretty POV, as it makes implications about the ethnicity of medieval Bosnia that were already carefully adressed in the text. Live Forever 20:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all Live Forever you are not fooling anyone into believing that you are Bosniak, becasue it is pretty obvious that you are not one. This is not POV, but pure FACTS. You cannot deny the charter of kulin ban. Period. Damir Mišić 21:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I never denied the charter of Ban Kulin. I merely believe that in the context of the article this paragraph is unnecessary and highly POV. Several other users obviously feel the same way. I will try to work in something that accurately mentions the use of "Bošnjani" and is fair to everyone. Live Forever 21:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know if Live is Bosniak, but I agree with him on this one. Fact is that the population of preottoman Bosnia-Hercegovina is reffered to in many medieval instances, charters and letters as Bošnjani, but that fact has little to do with this article. Nikola 11:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No it has much to do with the article since mainly serbian and croatian nationalists have tried to deny a medieveal Bosnian identity. This needs to be in the article somewhere, you choose for yourselves. Damir Mišić


 * OK, now, how does the fact that the population of preottoman Bosnia-Hercegovina is reffered to in many medieval instances, charters and letters as Bošnjani confirms a medieveal Bosnian identity in any way? Nikola 12:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In the same way as croatian and serb confirms it for croatia and serbia. Damir Mišić


 * No it doesn't. Bošnjani is word derived from Bosna while Hrvatska is derived from Hrvat and Srbija from Srb. Actually, it implies the opposite, because if some identity existed, it would certainly have a name. To explain it simpler:

"Serbia" is name for a country derived from the name of people that inhabit it. Same for Croatia. But "Bosnia" is not such a name. "Bosnians" is name for a population derived from the name of the country they inhabit - exactly the opposite thing, in fact. Nikola 07:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okey what you just wrote is totally unreasonable, so you say that Italians and Spanians aren't a people just because they, like Bosniaks, derive their name from their country. You are wrong and I think you are trying to neglect the Bosniak's Bosnian identity which has been officially accepted by everyone, obviously except from some nationalists. Damir Mišić 17:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No. I wrote that we can't say that Bosniaks are a people because there are mentions of them in medieval documents. There may be other, unrelated evidence to it. But mentions in medieval documents isn't an evidence. Nikola 09:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok Nikola, but what about writing then something like this: "The inhabitants of medieval Bosnia were recognized as Bosnjani"? Damir Mišić 18:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First, it's slightly ambiguous - what does "recognised" means? Saying that "the inhabitants of medieval Bosnia were called/referred to as Bosnjani" would be better. But, even then, what does that means to an English-speaking reader? How would you explain that to them? Nikola 14:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need of complicating the matter, it sounds fine to me to just write as you said above "the inhabitants of medieval Bosnia were called/referred to as Bosnjani". It is uncomplicated and neutral. Damir Mišić 18:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Zakat
"Though much has been made of the fact that Christian and Jewish subjects of the Sultan paid a 'poll tax' from which Muslims were exempt, Muslims were also faced with the religious zekjat tax, whereas Catholics made donations to their church only on a voluntary basis."

This poll tax is more accurately transliterated as zakat. Futhermore, the tax actually doesn't always have to go their mosque; zakat often goes towards the poor and needy. I'm fairly certain zakat has always been like this, even in the Ottoman Empire.

Genetic info
It's been brought up before: the genetic information in this article is based on controversial science; cautionary text should be added, and maybe the information should be removed and put in a separate article because it may be too unsound. Alexander 007 21:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been a thorn in my eye for a long time, alongside with similar one in Croats article; however, as someone who can be potentially seen as biased on the issue, I'm reluctant to do it, and I'd rather seek for consensus among prominent Bosniak editors (Damir excluded :-) ). I'm not convinced in scientific validity of the method either. Even if the method were solid, I think the section is counterproductive in the sense that it more demonstrates the national frustrations than it proves a point. Duja 14:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nonsense, it stays period. Damir Mišić 20:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you improve it instead, then? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Yugo school for thought
I went to school in Yugoslavia as a child in Nis (Serbia)

We were ALWAYS told that people of Bosnia Herzegovina were Croats in origin and Montenegrins were Serbs in origin. The mixture only happened when the Turks invaded Bosnia. ++ We are all Slavs and all ate from the same cooking pot way back in the 6th century, no matter the name, we are all the same in origin.

--

Damir, yet again
(Repeated on Damir's talk page.)

Damir, your POV that Bosniaks = Bosnian people is not acceptable. Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats are as much Bosnian people as Bosniaks. They all even waged a war about it. So is not acceptable your approach that "I may insert whatever I want about Serbs". No, I can't if it's not factually true. And we don't divide the articles here on "yours" and "ours".

Unfortunately, I cannot assume good faith on your part anymore, as your repeat your attack tactics on several selected articles – all you do is to change the very introduction paragraphs, agreed by many editors long time ago, to concur with your point of view. I am sorry that you are apparently unable to accept existence of other viewpoints, quite different from yours and quite more widely accepted, and to realize that your PoV is an extreme one. I may file a WP:RfC soon. Duja 20:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

---

More Sources are Needed
This article discusses the history and culture of Bosniaks, but the references section lacks the sources for the claims made. The only reference is the "The Peopling of Modern Bosnia-Herzegovina: Y - chromosome Haplogroups in the Three Main Ethnic Groups" which has no information on history or culture. Please add more references.

Problem with the number of Bosniaks in Serbia and Montenegro
In S&M (2005) 245.000, in Serbia 136.000 (2002), in Montenegro 48.000 (2003); S+M=184.000. We need 60.000 more... May someone verify data? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 06:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think those were the correct figures (I inserted them, there were even links to censa pages). 60,000 account for those who opted for "Muslim" ethnic designation. Duja 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Catherine the Great???
Damir, did my eyes see that you added Catherine the Great to the picture, or was I daydreaming? She's a Bosniak too? Duja 20:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do you even have a clue?. This is not catherine of Russia but Catherine of B-o-s-n-i-a! Look carefully next time you vandalise! Damir Mišić
 * No, I don't have a clue. I won't have it unless you present some proofs for your claims:
 * I'm not aware that Bosnia ever had a queen on the throne. The only Katarina Velika I know in history is Catherine II of Russia.
 * Well, now teach me who was she? Katarina Kotromanić? How is she undisputably a Bosniak? How is she "Velika"?
 * I didn't vandalize anything, just reverted an unsubstantiated edit. (Which doesn't become more unsubstantiated by attacking
 * You could as well respond on Talk:Bosniaks instead of my talk page. Duja 21:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well big deal my friend, if I accedently called here great when she isn't. But she still is Catherine of Bosnia and queen Katarina Kosača-Kotromanić. As you recall the rulers of bosnia reffered to themselves as Bosnjani which is an archaic term of Bosniaks. Furthermore you can read that the modern bosniaks are the descendants of those who called themselves Bosnjani or Good bosnjani - Katarina is according to all facts a Bosnjanin or if you like a "pre- Bosniak". You know this better than I. Damir Mišić 22:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said on my talk page, I disagree (for the umpteenth time) that "Bošnjani is an archaic term of Bosniaks", which PoV you keep on pushing. I also dislike the broad generalization in this article that "Bosniaks are descendents of Dobri Bošnjani", but I didn't push it for the sake of piece. However, even if I accept this statement, it doesn't contradict the thesis that Bosnian Serbs and Croats are also descendents of Bošnjani. So, again, she was a Bosnian but not a Bosniak (nor, probably, a Serb or a Croat for that matter). Stop appropriating entire history of Bosnia to one ethinc group. Duja 22:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Just noting that I agree wholeheartedly with Duja. The article is getting ridiculous and is need of a major overhaul sometime in the not too distant future. Its absurd to assign modern ethnic names to medieval bosnian royalty. Live Forever 02:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Quitte very much like Duja and Live Forever said. Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats are all domestic and indiginous peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina.


 * Let me add something, according to Ferdo Sisic and several other prominent Croatian Early Modern Ages historians (who, by the way, first deciphred and studied the "Bosniens"), one of the two main characteristics of Bosniens is Bogumilism, or at least the Bosnian Church. As silly as it would be to call Katarina a Croat (because ehtnicities cannot be applied to that period), if we use the "ethnic system" for that period - Katarina wasn't even a Bosnien.


 * Note I use "E" to differ from BosniAns. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me ask you smart anthropologists one thing! -first she wasn't bosniak, then she wasn't Bosnian and finally she wasn't "bosnien"(?) - all I heard was that she, according to you, wasn't bosnian/bosniak/bosnien x 3 times. Just to simplify one thing to those who live in darkness - You have the right side which in bosnian/serbian/croatian is "Desno" and then you have the one who is from the right side/desno; he or her is then called Desnjak in bosnian/croatian/serbian and "desniak" in english. The same goes for Bosna/Bosnia and Bosnjak and Bosniak - no more discussion, it only gets more silly for every message. Damir Mišić 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I must admit I'm surprised by your innovations in morphology (linguistics)... Duja 18:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said before I don't deny that the catholics of bosnia (the so-called "Bosnian "croats"") and the orthodoxs of bosnia (the so-called "Bosnian "serbs"") are as indigenous as Bosniaks, simply becasue these Bosnian "croats" and "serbs" are nothing but catholic and orthodox Bosniaks/Bosnians/Bosniens. Only thing is that they have abandond their Bosnian ethnicity and decided for the serb or croat one based on their religion - the only ones who still confess them to Bosnianhood are the bosniaks who, at least still, haven't abandond their bosnianhood. I agree that the catholics and orthodoxs of bosnia are indigenous to bosnia, but for God's sake don't call them croats or serbs then because they aren't that. Damir Mišić 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ...as well as in the field of world observation. You know, this is an encyclopedia, which is supported to record the existing inventory of human knowledge rather than to invent new. WP:NOT. They call themselves Croats and Serbs for God's sake, and would defend that with weapons! You might think they are not, yet this doesn't change the facts.Duja 18:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Because a "serb" or a "croat" cannot be indigenous to any other country but Serbia or Croatia. Damir Mišić 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Are Americans native to America? Are Serbs native to Serbia? All our ancestors came here from somewhere. Nativity is very relative term. And you keep on offering your simplistic views. Duja 18:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Bosnia is a foreign country in relation to serbia and croatia and not a "second serbia or croatia". Those who can't realise this are either blinded by their own nationalistic thoughts and evil "empire" or they are just "less smart". Picture stays - no room for compromise; bosniaks=bosnians=queen catharine, I cant understand how some people aren't even ashamed of denying another people's history in this pure evil but rather silly way. Damir Mišić 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't understand either how some people can appropriate other people's histories. (Actually, I can, but the statement was rhetoric). Can you accept that in 14th century there were no Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats in Bosnia? (I'm purposefully oversimplifying so that you can understand). Ergo, Bosniaks are can not be the sole titulaires of that heritage, ergo stating that in this article is at least misleading.Duja 18:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Catherine of b-o-s-n-i-a is b-o-s-n-i-a-n, she was a native queen - period!. And I don't want anyone to think that I am angry with them or anyhting like that, I enjoy talking to all of you no matter your oppinions - we all have something to learn from each other. I hope you consider this as positive as I do. Greetings Damir Mišić 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Except that terms "Bosnian/Bosanac" and "Bosniak/Bošnjak" are not synonyms in modern usage.Duja 18:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me state something here: Catherine Kosaca-Kotroman was not a Bosniak; was not a Bosnien and was not a Bosnian. The only reason to consider her Bosnian would be because her place of birth/life is the territory of today's Bosnia - a historical concotion; should we consider Emperor Constantine the Great a Serbia? Also, the proper name would be Herzegovinian, so even that rolls out. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your arguments, emperor, are straight ludacris, sorry but I do. First off there is no such thing as herzegovinian in an ethnic or even national meaning; Herzegovina was founded in the 15th century as a Bosnian terretory by the Bosnian duke Stjepan Vukčić Kosača. Therefore Herzegovina is simply a part of Bosnia like dalmatia is a part of Croatia. If you ask a "Dalmatian", "what is your nation?" - do you believe he will answer "dalmatian" or Croat?; if you think Dalmatian, you better re-consider. And if you think that a "herzegovinian" would answer anything else but Bosnian/Bosniak you should really start investigating facts instead of making them up. Damir Mišić

"should we consider Emperor Constantine the Great a Serbian?" As far as I am concerned you may do whatever you like emperor, but comparing Constantine's ethnic relation to serbia to the relation Katarina had to Bosnia is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Katarina was native to Bosnia as the native queen of Bosnia - she spoke Bosnian language and followed Bosnian customs. I "really" wonder if constantine did this with serbia? I guess your argument on this is that "so what if Katarina was born in Bosnia, spoke bosnian language, looked like a bosnian, had bosnian parents and was the queen of bosnia - it doesn't have to make her a bosnian, now has it?" - well "emperor" gosh I don't know perhaps it does after all!. Bosniaks = ethnic Bosnians, Bosnians = to anyone who lives in bosnia, but however in its strictest sense it reffers to ethnic bosnians (bosniaks). Catharine was a bosnian in its strictest sense, a bosniak - which is derived from bosnjanin - and that is exactly what she was and her remainings still are in what grave she ever might lay in. I will no longer have this discussion with you, because I sadly don't have time for it, but I appreciate you took the time to discuss. Damir Mišić

Bosnians in turkey
How many bosniaks are there in turkey today? We should try to find it out, because as for now, the bosniaks in turkey aren't even added to the total sum of bosniak population in the article. I think there 'at least 300.000 bosniaks in turkey today, and perhaps even all the way up to figures as high as 1 million. I will, for now, add 300.000 in turkey to begin with and I will awaite larger research to make the figure higher in the article. Damir Mišić 13:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with that information is that it's unverifiable. There were many Bosniak emmigrants to Turkey indeed, but (apart from a relatively small wave during Bosnian War) most of them are assimilated, having forgotten the language, accepted Turkicized surnames, made mixed marriages with native Turks etc. In other words, you can't count them unambiguously&mdash;at what point someone stops being a Bosniak and becomes a Turk&mdash;or, at what point someone stops being an Irish and becomes an American? This is a general problem with any diaspora, not just Bosniak one. You can't find the numbers, because it's impossible to count. I suggest that we mention the Turkish diaspora in the infobox (estimated number of emigrants during 1878-1940 and 1990s can probably be found), but refrain from providing any numbers (because they will inherently be wrong). Duja 09:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's true that Turkey has a huge bosniak descended population, possibly even outnumbering bosniaks in bosnia itself, but its wrong to put them all down as "bosniaks" in the same sense as those in say, Serbia or croatia. Duja makes some great points about assimilation and I have to agree. After all, we're all assimilated from someone else. Kilhan 18:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent Findings of the Origins of Bosniaks
"Yes my good man, Bosniaks are the slavicized descendants of Illyrians. Only bosniaks and albanians accepted Islam in large scale, "Bosnia" stems from illyrian "Bosona" (meaning running water) and bosniaks are much more similiar to albanians than to serbs or croats. Yes bosnian serbs and bosnian croats look exactly as Bosniaks, more than albanians do, but this is because bosnian serbs and bosnian croats are simply Catholic Bosniaks and Orthodox Bosniaks. Even the real croats,from croatia, consider the bosnian croats to actually be only Catholic Bosnians and not Croats. Allthoug the croat government is lying about this because they want to claim Bosnian lands. Remember Bosnian croats were Bosniaks as late as in the 19th century when they suddenly changed ethnicity to croats because of religion." Damir Mišić 22:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

According to DAMIR MISIC's Findings I believe This is quintessential information that must be including, therefore i suggest the bosniak article should mention some where that Bosniaks are actually Albanians who took up Slavic culture.

kind regards --Jadran 07:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop with all that aryan theories crap. Just like Serbs and Croats and Bulgarians and..., Bosniaks descend from population of Slavic settlers mixed with native Illyrian, Dacian and whatever tribes, and accepted the Slavic language. It is primarily the language which makes us all "Slavs", not the amount of Q and W genes inherited from whoever were our ancestors. Population we know today as Bosniaks differs from their Serb and Croat neighbors only because their ancestors accepted Islam unlike Serbs and Croats who accepted Orthodox and Catholic Christianity. Some did it immediately in 15th century, many others did it during the course of Ottoman rule. As Nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bosnian Church article describe, Bosniaks and Albanians accepted Islam because, due to politic and social conditions in these areas, the Christian church influence was weak and Islam had a fertile ground to prosper. This has nothing to do with genetics and almost nothing to do with fictive Bogomils (whose role in Bosnia is exaggerated). Duja 09:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Duja you have developed your language, I notice you started to include irony in it as well now. "Fictive Bogomils" (you wish, you know this is not true). The illyrian theory is to be included, it is just a theory. Nationalist theories about bosniaks being serbs or croats are in the text so why not the illyrian one. To Jadran: you are amateuristic and lack any substanstial knowledge in history, Not albanians but illyrians - albanians are not the only illyrians. Damir Mišić 16:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In this website, any theory presented must be one made by a relevant researcher (komšija Haso doesn't count), backed up by a certain number of relevant fellows (i.e. "flat Earth" type of theories don't count) and published in a relevant publication (i.e. discussion forums, blogs, folk songs and similar don't count either). Pet theories don't count. I didn't see you ever presented a source for your claims. "There are some theories claiming that Bosniaks are not Slavs at all" is a weasel word without a source. All those "theories" (as well as Serbs' and Croats' claims on Bosniak origin) are folk tales. Duja 10:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha, your say that, yet you are so naive to think that only the Bosniaks are pure illyarian, while Croats and Serbs are Pure Slavs who did not mix with the native populations. Please, Croats and Serbs could also push for the claim, "they are decendants of illyarians", but it is only the Bosniaks that do so, because they are in denial about there croat and serb tribe ancestry, so they use the illyarian theory to distinguish themselves, when evryone knows that both eastern and western christianity was weak in the modern day province of bosnia, as a result heretics formed, such a bogomils,bosnian church,etc and these heretics were easily converted to islam, and as a result you have today a modern day bosniak nation who, through 500 years of ottoman rule, devloped and lost all affinity to their mother country Croatia and lessor extent Serbia, through there privelged postion in Bosnian society--Jadran 07:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's http://www.iis.unsa.ba/prilozi/30/30_prikazi_nove.htm an excerpt from theories of renowned Bosniak historian Mustafa Imamović, and I won't even quote non-Bosniak historians. (Emphasis mine):
 * Porijeklo. Većina Bošnjaka prihvata jedan mit o porijeklu, koji vodi u njihovu etnogenezu u srednjem vijeku. Popularna legenda je jednostavna, privlačna i nedvosmislena. Nakon doseljavanja na Balkanski poluotok u šestom i sedmom stoljeću, priča kaže, da su stanovnike Bosne koji su govorili slavenskim jezikom, pokrstili kršćanski misionari iz Rima na zapadu i Konstantinopola na istoku. Bosanci, koji nisu htjeli pripasti pod katolike ili pravoslavne, stvorili su svoju crkvu i mnogi su vjernici prihvatili dualističku herezu, poznatu kao bogumilstvo. Srednjovjekovna bosanska država pod vodstvom Kulina bana (vladao od 1180-1204) i kralja Tvrtka (vladao 1353-91) zauzimala je velika prostranstva. Ona je stvorila sigurno uporište za Crkvu bosansku i bogumilske heretike. Nakon osmanskog osvajanja Bosne (završeno 1463), bogumili i plemstvo srednjovjekovne Bosne je en masse primilo islam i postali su bosanski Muslimani, pripadnici grupe, koja je danas poznata kao Bošnjaci.


 * ''U Historiji Bošnjaka Mustafa Imamović  zauzima nešto drukčiji stav o bošnjačkoj etnogenzi i ne negira popularni mit. On citira brojne (recentne studije o Crkvi bosanskoj i zaključuje da se malo zna o doktrinama, ostavljajući otvorenim pitanje, da li je crkva bila uporište bogumilske hereze. Više se zna o hijerarhiji i strukturi Crkve bosanske i Imamović tvrdi da je crkvena organizacija podržavala etnopolitički razvoj srednjovjekovne bosanske države.


 * Imamović je primanje islama u Bosni ocrtao kao duži proces (a nije bio brz) i sa malim izuzetcima bio je dobrovoljan. On citira mnoge recentne studije, koje se osnivaju na osmanskim dokumentima popisivanja stanovništva i izvještajima katoličkih vizitatora, da pokaže kako se primanje islama odvijalo postepeno, od 1450-tih do početka sedamnaestog stoljeća. Nadalje, oni koji su primili islam dolazili su iz sve tri kršćanske vjeroispovijesti: katoličanstva, pravoslavlja i Crkve bosanske. On je odbacio spoznaju da je bosansko srednjovjekovno plemstvo en masse primilo islam, da sačuva svoje posjede i privilegije, on tvrdi, da je sultan davao zemlju samo onima koji su u bitkama služili Carstvu. On ne hvali hipoteze o rapidnom i prisilnom primanju islama, što su neki historičari zastupali i izjavljuje, da se ovim želi diskreditirati autentičnost bošnjačke nacionalnosti.

If you won't read the books on the subject you want to write to, can't you just use Google? It's cheaper, you know. Duja 10:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed
"One observer in the 16th century even mentioned that the Sultan believed Bosniaks were "the best, most pious and most loyal people" and "much bigger, more handsome, and more able" than other Muslim peoples. Though the devsirme system probably didn't influence the demographics of Bosnia significantly, it did firmly establish the Slavic element and language in Istanbul's administration and provided Bosnia with local Bosniak governors from 1488 onward."

I've read somewhere before that Bosniaks were considered by a certain Sultan to have been the best defenders of the Islamic state but that observation you quoted isn't cited. I'd appreciate it if someone could cite this properly.


 * I'm reasonably sure that's from Malcom's "Bosnia, a short history". Live Forever 20:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

---

NPOV Check
I would like to have a domain area expert (i.e. someone with deep knowledge of genetics) perform an NPOV check on the genetics part of this article. It seems that the results of the research are being intentionally misinterpreted to push a particular view point.

In particular, I would like to have someone explain how a frequency of a certiain halo group or a sub-halo group can lead to the conclusion that a given ethnic group is indiginous in some geographic area. My knowledge regarding geneological genetic testing is not very strong, but according to this article http://www.slate.com/id/2138059/ we can not use genetic testing to deterime the origin or our ancient ancestors.


 * I'll have to say that I kind of agree with this user. I do, allthough, think that ancestors can be decided in some extent by genetictests but, however, not by the methods available now. Furthermore I have to say that the frequency of dinaric genes is not equal to indigenousness in the balkan area; dinarics can also be found in large amounts among ukrainans and german people, while the dinaric frequency, at the same time, is almost zero among native balkans peoples like greeks and albanians. So my conclusion is that high frequency of dinaric genes is not equal to indiginousness in balkan or mediteranian area. We should in some way rewrite that part of the article. Damir Mišić 21:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The genetics section now contains a contradiction. First it asserts "It should, however, be mentioned that "Dinaric genes" are not indicative of indigenousness to the Balkan or Mediterranean areas.". Then it concludes with "As it stands, current studies have shown that, genetically, Bosniaks are largely indigenous and have a large fraction of the ancient gene pool distinctive for the Balkan area." I have removed the later sentance in order to eliminate the contradiction.

Lack of Sources and References
This article goes on at length about the history and culture of Bosniaks, but no references are provided except for "The Peopling of Modern Bosnia-Herzegovina: Y - chromosome Haplogroups in the Three Main Ethnic Groups". Since the aforementioned article contains no thing regarding culuture or history I beleive that we need to expand out list of sources.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)