Talk:Bosniaks/Archive 5

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


 * I tried to remove it because she isn't a Bosniak, but I got reverted. Apparently the nationalist fanatics run this article, and everyone else is just happy to appease them. Oh well. 124.187.50.4 (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sturmkrieger, how elaborately and subtly you are denying the existence of the Bosniak people in your post, you must think of yourself as very clever! And not to mention the ingenious reference of your user name to WWII Nazi soldiers, really being the crown jewel of your rampage on Wikipedia. Getting serious, Bosniaks are derived from Bosnjani, and Katarina Kosaca Kotromanic was a Bosnian queen of Bosnjanin nationality (i.e. nothing short of a Bosnian ethnicity). The choice of her picture is valid. Sturmkrieger, do not make your narrow-mindedness an issue of this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.130.249.179 (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is indeed ridiculuous that Katarina Kosaca's picture is included here. At the beginning of this article, one comes across three points which seem to suggest that if one fulfills all of them, one is a Bosniak. They are:

traditional adherence to Islam, and common culture and language.
 * Bosniaks are typically characterized by their tie to the Bosnian historical region,


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


 * Paperoverman (talk) 07:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Map
Stop removing the map. See File:DemoBIH2006a.png File:Census 2002 Serbia, ethnic map (by municipalities).png File:Montenegroetno03.png. Stop vandalizing the page. 92.36.253.26 (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The map shows incorrect data - green colored area in the lower right corner of the map is called Gora, and is inhabited by Gorani people (see File:Kosovo_ethnic.png, not by Bosniaks. Therefore, the map should be edited to show proper data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.227.198 (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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

New Image
It seems that this page is having the same problem as it once has: the image of people who are Bosniaks. Tvtko was Christian, Jukic was in the Franciscan order, Selimovic later declared himself a Serb, and Izetbegovic is the only one who can fully be recognized as Bosniak. One of the requirements set forth in the opening paragraph of the article is the adherence to Islam, and only one of the four in the picture actually falls into that category. Paperoverman (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the problems you've stated, and as such, I've removed the addition of those images pending further discussion. 60.228.194.188 (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They are part of the history that has got the Bosniak identity to where it is. As long as the article does not claim they are Bosniaks (which it certainly does not) they are significant figures in the development of the regional bosniak identity. This whole "you cannot claim these people are part of your history" rubbish strikes me as central to many of the problems facing the Balkans. Polargeo (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I will ask three simple questions.


 * 1) If Bosnia had not existed would we now call anyone a "Bosniak"?
 * 2) Are the ancestors of present day Bosniaks mainly Turkish in origin or is this just where a significant amount of their cultural identity comes from?
 * 3) Does a significant proportion of Bosniak cultural identity come from sources other than Islam? Polargeo (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will now answer my questions

Therefore why does every image have to be of a Bosniak? If that was the case nobody would have been a Bosniak until the last decade or two. The images show figures who are considered important in developing the cultural identity. The fight in this article has mainly come from people of other cultural identites who are trying to deny the reference to these people because they think they have more of a claim on these historical figures. Whilst that may or may not be true I don't really care for these petty battles and neither should wikipedia have to deal with them. Polargeo (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No
 * 1) The ancestors of present day Bosniaks are not mainly Turkish in origin but Turkey is where a significant amount of the cultural identity comes from.
 * Yes
 * You hit the nail on the head. The argument ultimately comes down to the polarization that Catholics and Orthodox in BiH must be Croat or Serb. ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 13:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Polargeo, you say that the article does not claim that the people in the image are identified as Bosniaks. With all due respect, you must be kidding. The headline says "Bosniaks" and below it are the Lilly and the portraits. If that does not imply that they are Bosniaks, I think that the template needs to be reconsidered. As well, on the article for Ivan Franjo Jukić, it says "Bosniak" underneath his portrait, when clearly the man is not.

I don't dispute your argument (I actually agree with it) that they play an important part in the history of the region but it makes no sense to identify them directly as Bosniaks (because they themselves never did!). You're setting a precedent which would make possible to add the photograph of a person to a group which they didn't belong to but could be used to say that the person in question played an important part for that group. Paperoverman (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. I believe whoever put Ivan Franjo Jukic there was trying to start some trouble... I've removed him. His ethnicity is highly debatable, and many argue that the use of "Bosniaks" in this quote: "We Bosniaks, the once-famous people, now that we are barely alive..." was mistranslated (originally Bosnjak), and should be "Bosnian" - i.e. a regional affiliation, and not an ethnic one. This statement on his page sums it up pretty well -- "However, Jukić's national belonging was always and primarily defined as Bosniak (he regularly wrote under the pseudonym of Slavoljub Bošnjak (Slavophile Bosniak), and in such a way so as to include all ethnic and denominational groups inhabiting this space."  However, even there I would question the use of "Bosniak" -- "Bosnian" seems much more accurate and I'm questioning whether that page was politically motivated as well.--BignBad (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Surely Tvrtko should not be there either. For starters, that very image of him is already included in the article, and indeed it's current place in the article is fine, as that section is speaking about the history of Bosnia. I would advise against including someone contentious like Tvrtko in the infobox - that goes not just for this article but also for the articles on the other two aforementioned ethnic groups.


 * Really, is it too much trouble to add well known individuals who are unlikely to be "controversial"? For example Husein Gradaščević would be a good choice here. 60.228.194.188 (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel that nobody has really read or understood my points above. Nor has anyone even tried to understand them. Instead the discussion has just reverted back to that "you cannot claim him" nature. Polargeo (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot understand why the Tvrtko image was removed, the symbol of Bosniaks is Zlatni ljljan. If we remove the Tvrtko image we can remove this shield.Bosniak Coat of Arms.svg
 * Here are some people who should be on this template, can someone fix some pics?
 * Husein-kapetan Gradaščević
 * Mehmedalija Mak Dizdar
 * Musa Ćazim Ćatić or this
 * --DzWiki (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently Tvrtko was removed because he was a Christian. His historical importance in developing Bosniak identity does not seem to stand for much because various Croat and Serb editors are passionate about not letting Bosniaks identify with any historical figures who were not Muslim. All extremely petty stuff but there you have it. Polargeo (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, can Bosniaks belong to any religion. I'm not expert but I believe that Ivan Franjo Jukic is a bosniak, says so in the article :S. Anyways, we Bosniaks was stupid to let others write our history. --DzWiki (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

DzWiki... read what I said above. He even refers to it as a "nationality" and not an ethnicity. Many believe that that is a mistranslation -- and the word he is using is "Bosnian", which is more of a regional term than anything ("Bosniak" - ethnic term that never even exited in his day). Quote from his article: "However, Jukić's national belonging was always and primarily defined as Bosniak (he regularly wrote under the pseudonym of Slavoljub Bošnjak (Slavophile Bosniak), and in such a way so as to include all ethnic and denominational groups inhabiting this space."  That really sums it up as well - he used "Bosniak" (I'll again state that this is a mistranslation in the modern sense) as a "national"/"regional" term that encompassed all ethnicities in Bosnia.  He's Bosnian, but he's NOT an ethnic Bosniak.  This isn't about claiming anyone - it's about reporting the facts, and calling Jukic a "Bosniak" is highly debatable and questionable.  What we have on this page here is people twisting facts for political reasons, something that is against Wikipedia policies -- no personal political agendas, original research and POV.  I will not hesitate to stick a POV/original research tag on this page if this isn't resolved. --BignBad (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Again the point is completely missed. Nobody is saying X is a Bosniak or Y is a Bosniak. If they are important historical figures for Bosniak identity then their images should be allowed in the article as long as the article does not mislead people into thinking they are Bosniaks by the current definition. Polargeo (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Polargeo, people do understand what you are saying; Having an image of Tvrtko is definitely fine in the article, as he was important in developing Bosniak identity. However, having someone such as him in the infobox - here or on Croat/Serb article - does indeed mislead people into thinking he is a Bosniak by the current definition.
 * My position is that in ethnic group articles, those who have contributed to the formation of an ethnic identity can, and should, be mentioned (and illustrated) in the appropriate section of the article, while the infobox is for notable individuals who meet the modern definition of the group. 60.228.194.188 (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I take your point. However, as long as it is made clear that they do not fit the current definition of Bosniak and that they are important figures in the development of the identity then they would be fine in the infobox. Polargeo (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am annoyed at people who come to Wikipedia and share their opinions. Here on Wikipedia, we do not care for your opinion just facts. This debate is totally meaningless.
 * I still don't understand why the Tvrtko image was removed from the infobox we use his symbols. I'd love to hear a source saying that the people who lived in Bosnia during Tvtko's time is not Bosniaks ancestors.
 * The biggest problem with Ivan Franjo Jukic is that he's not Muslim. But I'm almost 100% sure that if he were a Muslim, no one would come up with these views.
 * I should never put up these pictures because there are always nationalists who pretend their self like historians when they do not have the faintest idea.
 * Get some sources, then maybe I will belive in u! Or the easiest is to just remove the pictures and stop this unnecessary debate.
 * --DzWiki (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC) (Perhaps relative to a "Bosniak" during the time Tvrtko ruled in Bosnia)
 * Yes I agree there would not be the opposition if the historical figure was a muslim even though the argument is essentially the same. It is a really poor argument. Polargeo (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Polargeo, just to add, that Bosniaks had problems with Serbs (genocide, ethnic cleansing, rape etc) during last century, because Serbs had a plan to erase Bosniaks from the Balkans, and to include Bosnia in Serbia. The main reason for the last genocide against Bosniaks was Serbian view of Bosniaks as those who are "Turks" (ie enemy) - Turks defeated Serbs in 1389. Bosniaks in the middle ages were heretics, with their own Church, when the Turks occupied the Balkans they converted to Islam. When Turks left the Balkans, Bosniaks were the only one to be identified with Turks because both nations are Muslims. This psychosis is still very strong among the Serbs and many Wikipedian editors. During Yugoslavia, Serbs didn't allow Bosniaks to be called by their own name - Bosniaks. However Tito (Croat) made a compromise and allowed Bosniaks to be called Muslims and to have a status of a nation in Yugoslavia (Muslims by nationality). After Bosnia became independent, Bosniaks officially returned their own name. After that Serbs committed genocide, which was the last attempt to remove "Turks" from the Balkans. Now, Serbs are trying to remove every trace of Bosniak history. They are still hiding Ratko Mladic as they did with Radovan Karadzic for 15 years. Both monsters are heroes in Serbia today especially among Serbian youth. Rochass (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What an unbelievably hate filled rant. Besides the fact that sort of vitriolic garbage has no place on Wikipedia (or elsewhere), the whole paragraph has absolutely naught to do with the discussion at hand. Please leave your prejudices at the door.

Back to the matter at hand, what is this "if he was a muslim you wouldn't be against it" argument trying to achieve? Of course there wouldn't be a problem if the individuals were muslim, as the current definition of Bosniak stipulates an adherence to Islam, or at least, having ancestors that did. In this very article, right in the lead paragraph it says as much.

A historical Bosnian figure such as Tvrtko should not be used in the infobox as they do not meet the definition of "Bosniak" by modern standards. Bosniak editors might not have a problem with having him there, as they are only looking at the issue from the inside out, but look at it from another perspective. In the vast majority of the English speaking world, there is much confusion over the distinct terms "Bosnian" and "Bosniak" - the latter term being only recently added to the lexicon.

By coming to this page, a reader wants to understand what a Bosniak is, and by seeing a historical Bosnian figure in the infobox - which is meant to give a quick overview of the article - who does not belong (exclusively or otherwise) to any modern ethnic group only serves to confuse the two terms even more, when, as an encyclopedia, confusion and ambiguity is supposed to be dispelled. Only those who meet the modern definition of "Bosniak" should be included in the infobox, because figures such as Tvrtko, simply put, are not Bosniaks by the modern definition. The article body is where they should go; since there is informative text in the article where the image is, there can be little or no confusion to readers who are not as knowledgeable in the subject as we are, whereas there is just no room in the infobox to write up paragraph(s) about the difference between the two terms.

Please, stop crying "hate", "bias", or whatever ad-hominem attacks are at the tip of your tongue whenever you see a view different to your own, as it is simply not the case. 60.228.194.188 (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I reviewed history of this article including archives. And it seems this article had been vandalised in different period of time by a Croatian neo-nazi or smth like that guy from Australia/Canberra called Ivan Kricancic (or Ivan Kričančić). My question to anon is: Are you Ivan Kricancic, or his friend? I just want to understand your motive and passion for removing historical pictures of some ethnic group in Europe ?! Rochass (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at your talk page, you are not one to talk. He is completely right and justified in removing the two pictures of two non-Bosniaks from this page.  As it's been established in this discussion, Jukic and Tvrtko are NOT Bosniaks, but they may have been key in the development of a Bosniak identity.  However, putting them under a subheading of "Bosniaks" implies that they are Bosniak and violates many Wikipedia policies: including NPOV, something you've been warned of in the past. --BignBad (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, Rochass needs to be warned to avoid ad hominem attacks, and racist language. Please cease with your nonsensical bullshit and stick to the issue at hand.

Some of the individuals you insist on including in the infobox are simply not Bosniaks, therefore should not be included. End of story. 124.185.221.93 (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're Ivan Kričančić, the neo-nazi guy from Canberra than that might had been considered as ad hominem attack from your perspective, but I don't know who I am talking to. Btw, can you provide any source for your claim. Rochass (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are insisting on including them, which is why it is left to you to provide a reliable source for their inclusion. However, we've already discussed (and everyone seems to have reached a consensus) that they are not Bosniaks, and including them in the infobox implies that they are, which is deceiving and plain wrong. --BignBad (talk) 06:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're wrong. They were included, you are insisting on removing them, which is why it is left to you to provide a reliable source for their removal. Simple as that. Rochass (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia works buddy. Just because they were on this page before doesn't justify their inclusion.  A source and only a source does (especially if questioned).  If you wish to include something on a page, and do not want it removed, it is up to you to deliver with a reliable source for their inclusion.  Everything on here has to be cited.  By your logic, I could go make a ridiculous claim on any page and demand a source negating my view for its removal (and depending on how obscure it is, it many not even exist).  I don't think so.  --BignBad (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * From reliable source: "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations."'
 * From Verifiability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material
 * --BignBad (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Rochass, please familiarise yourself with WP:AGF. I don't know why you feel it's necessary to make entirely baseless and completely false accusations against editors here, but please remain civil, keep a cool head, and comment on the content.

Anyway, back on topic. WP:Verifiability states "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed". Since there are no sources cited, those contentious images were rightly removed.

I would also argue (at least for Tvrtko), this is an exceptional claim. The policy on exceptional claims such as "Trvtko was a Bosniak" stipulates that 'exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as...the undue weight provision of Neutral point of view.'

This means it can't just be any old source you use, but it must be highly reliable. Feel free to include him if you can locate such a source, however, I'm 99.9% certain you won't be able to find one. 58.169.206.193 (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"Bosniak" as "Bosnian Muslim" vs. "Bosniak" as "Culturally/Historically Bosnian"
It seems to me that there is a significant problem with the way the question of what constitutes a "Bosniak" is presented in this article. The general consensus seems to be that a Bosniak is what was once referred to as being a "Muslim by nationality" in the former Yugoslavia. This claim, however, is open to interpretation.

As a historical term, Bosniak was not exclusive to Bosnian Muslims, as has already been mentioned by several people, and indeed would more appropriately be understood as a term signifying one who identified as being truly "Bosnian." In this sense, Bosnian could mean Muslim, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish and so on. What it signified, above all, was the particular blend of culture, political structures and traditions that differentiated Bosnia from, say, Croatia or Serbia. Thus, in a historical context, Bosniak became interchangeable with Bosnian, a term that had existed and been in use since at least the Middle Ages (see: Donia, Robert J. & Fine Jr., John V.A., "Bosnia-Hercegovina: A Tradition Betrayed", pg. 71-74, New York: Columbia University Pres, 1994).

It is only in recent decades, and more broadly, over the course of the 20th century that "Bosniak" begins to take on a distinctly Muslim character due a number of factors. There is, however, historically a distinctly different understanding of Bosniak, as a secular term effectively, comparable to modern, secular, and multiethnic notions of citizenship (i.e. Canadian, American, Australian etc).

I think much of the discussion on Tvtrko, for example, is rooted in the inability or, here-to-for, hesitance to demarcate this reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.35.40 (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

-- I should also add, that as far as pictures are concerned, Husein Gradaščević seems like a fairly obvious candidate: http://www.taiwandna.com/BosnianHusein_edited.jpg / http://www.bosnjaci.net/foto/Kapetan_Husein_Gradascevic_big.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.35.40 (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone put him there before but he was removed. Obviously someone didn't think so. Polargeo (talk) 06:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

> That's completely non-sensical. If we are using the above definition of Bosniak as "Bosnian Muslim" (which as I mentioned in my first post isn't as accurate as it might seem), then Gradaščević is about as clear of an example as we're going to find. He was Muslim, he was fighting for a sovereign Bosnia and he referred to himself and his followers as Bosniaks (though these included Serbs and Croats--hence my initial objections). There is absolutely no reason for him to be removed and unless someone can explain their position, I really think he ought to be returned to the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.35.40 (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

My recent revert
It does seem that there is a consensus that Tvrtko should not be in the infobox therefore I have enforced the consensus even though I disagree with it myself. Polargeo (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

King Tvrtko of Bosnia and Husein Kapetan (Dragon of Bosnia) the Biggggest Bosniaks in the Bosnian/Bosniak History --92.225.44.8 (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes maybe but there has been a lot of discussion on this talkpage and the consensus appears to be to not include Tvrtko. I don't see any gain in just continuing this discussion until the world ends or some editor wins through shear strength of edits. Tvrtko is in the article and does not need to be in the infobox as well. Polargeo (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

[]

King Tvrtko?
King Tvrtkos missing image. He was the first Bosniak first Bosnjanin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.91.249 (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.bosnahistorija.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=109:kotromanici-kao-srbinikad&catid=1:srednjovjekovna-bosna-od-700-1463&Itemid=65

--92.225.91.249 (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Jovan Ducic?!
I'd like to hear one good argument why Jovan Ducic is among the list of Bosnian Muslims. -- Cin é ma C 19:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox gives a bad impression of Bosniaks
The infobox here, one of the first things a reader sees, gives a rather bad first impression of Bosniaks. There's not even one woman among the famous Bosniaks in the infobox, which of course will lead the reader to wonder whether the position of women in Bosniak society is that bad? If there are famous Bosniak women, and I am sure they are, I would strongly suggest making sure that at least 25% of the famous persons featured with pictures in the infobox are female. The current infobox leaves the reader wondering about how equal Bosniak society is, and that is probably not what anyone wants the infobox to do.Jeppiz (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that if you have a female candidate for the infobox that you outline the case on this page. Wikipedia is not here to balance any gender gaps but if there is a good candidate I am sure editors will be happy to consider. Polargeo (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite right. I note that most infoboxes on European peoples have a certain proportion of women, with South Eastern Europe being the exception. I must admit to not knowing Bosnia that well but I'll have a look around Wikipedia and see what I come up with.Jeppiz (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Need a gnome
The infobox needs a gnome with some patience to fix the "Regions with significant populations" so that the first entry aligns correctly. I tried but it looks like more work than I can handle right now. Sole Flounder (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

stop stealing jovan ducic
jovan ducic was serb from herzegovina, stop putting him in bosniacs ... davorin popovic was croat ... --77.77.248.67 (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

jovan ducic was a serbian poet, born in herzegovina and worked in serbian diplomacy ... davorin popovic was croat from sarajevo ,... he doesnt have anything with bosniacs - bosnian muslims ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.77.244.85 (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

even wikipedia of bosnian muslims (which is pretty biased and censored wikipedia) even them they say that jovan ducic was serbian poet ... not to mention what other wikipedias say ,. and its a well known fact ... jovan ducic was serbian from herzegovina, he was not just serb but also serbian nationalist and worked as diplomat for serbian goverment ... http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jovan_Du%C4%8Di%C4%87 if u donnow the language use google translate ...


 * All that's needed is for you to cite some reliable sources - and wiki isn't a reliable source. One possible cause for confusion may be that someone could be described as Bosniak on the basis of the community and culture in which they were born, so it's not mutually exclusive with adopting Serbian culture, language, ideals or rule later in life. Nevertheless, if there's evidence that he wasn't born / raised in a Bosniak setting and didn't adopt Bosniak trappings I'd support his removal from this article. It's just a matter of presenting solid facts, not opinion or unqualified "common knowledge". -- Timberframe (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

are u kidding me ? they didnt have anything with bosniacs and stop removing the revert ... in fact bosniacs exist since 1993. when bosnian muslim politicians decided to replace name "muslim by nationality" to "bosniac" ... but since u dont know anything about balcans, than stop reverting my changes ... they didnt have anything with bosniacs ... jovan ducic was born in serbian family, raised in serbian culture , later he even worked as diplomat for serbian goverment ... he didnt not "accept" serbian culture later , he was born in serbian culture , this what u said is offencing for serbs by saying that he was born as "bosniac" and later "accepted" serbian culture ... --Tekstovi (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

and im not going to give u any relevant source because this is well known fact to all ppl in former yugoslavia .. u are either bosnian muslim nationalist who tries to steal famous serbs and convert them to bosniacs, or other case u dont know anything about balcans ... in both cases stop reverting the change ... --Tekstovi (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Common knowledge is not good enough. Produce some sources if you want to make changes.--Charles (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Btw, where are sources that confirm that Dučić and Popović are Bosniaks? --  Bojan   Talk   18:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * yeah its true, we didnt see any source claiming that they are bosniacs ... --Tekstovi (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If there are no reliable sources for either version he should be left out.--Charles (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I made a new image. The old one had license problems, and was nominated for deletation since 11 October 2010. Those new persons on image are 100% Bosniaks, so ther will be no discussion who is Bosniak, who is Croat and who is Serb.--Wustefuchs (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Ja sam za da neko doda i Jelenu Krkanusu (bil' to onda bila srpska ili hrvatska stranica?) ili kako se vec zove kao nacionalnog heroja, ili da doda link na stranicu Rambo Amadeusa (mora bit' negdje na internetu) i doda sekciju na temu "Kako postat' Halid 'mjesto Halida?". Mozda bi se mogla dodati i biografija Dine "Merlina" ili Kemala Montena... Samo prije nego sto se neko i za to odluci - ovo se zove cinizam. S druge strane, mozda njihove slike na ovoj stranici i ne bi trebale biti... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.129.253 (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Mogu li se umjesto ovih likova mozda staviti slike Mese Selimovica, ili ako nista drugo Pjanica (makar je Real izbacio, ako je vec nekome pokazujemo)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.129.253 (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

lool Mesa Selimovic pls NO! --92.225.35.144 (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Dobro mogu li to onda drugacije formulirati: Moze li neko ukloniti ove kretene (Merlin, Beslic, Monteno). Usput jesi li ikada vidio Dino Dervishalidovica -Merlina kako seta gradom i kako je obucen? Ostali su jos gori. Uklonite to sranje. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.212.53 (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ma odlično je to sve i taj tvoj cinizam i sve. Vi lijepo nađite Bošnjake oko kojih neće nastati rasprave jesu li Hrvati ili Srbi ili Bošnjaci, već da se zna na čisto, kad biste stavili Meša Selimovića, Srbi bi se javili, kad biste stavili Dizdara ili Ćatića, Hrvati bi se javili, kada bi ste stavili bosanske kraljeve/kraljice, oboje bi se javili, kada bi ste stavili nezz ni ja više, netko bi se javio. Eh, što fali Montenu? Čovjek je šansonjer, odličan pjevač, što fali Dini Merlinu (koji nije cajkaroš niti primitivni narodnjak) kojeg slušaju mladi od Ljubljane do Skopja? A Halid otpjeva tradicionalnu bosansku pjesmu, koja opet nije narodnjak, mada ga neki svrstavaju među te primitivce, a njegove pjesme mislim otkrivaju i bosanski mentalitet u cijelosti, mada nisam stručnjak od tog zanata, ali znam da će svi Halidu reći da je Bošnjak/Bosanac i slušaju ga kao i kolegu Merlina, tako da oko ovih ljudi nema dvojbe. Vi ako imate još koga za dodat, slobodno, lijepo uzmete, date truda i nadogradite verziju ove slike, naravno, sve to poštujući zakone o uporabi. A ako može jedna zamolba, pričajte na engleskom, ovo je engleska, ne bosanska/hrvatska/srpska wikipedija gdje možemo pričati jezikom da nas "ceo svet razume",

S poštovanjem, --Wustefuchs (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Na kraju ce zahvaljujuci ovakvim sranjima Mesa i biti srpski pisac. Ili, znaci li to da cemo staviti samo one koje inace niko nece? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.182.81 (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

ma ovaj Projekt za Slike Bosnjaka je propo teski! Stavili Halida, Dinu i neke druge Pjevace lool u mjesto Husein Kapetana ili jednog od Prvih dobro poznati Bosnjaka naprimjer gazi husrefbeg imamo tako jeko dobre Bosnjaka a vi redate jednog pjevaca iza drugog a mislim da ni jedan od njih nije reko da je Bosnjak nego uvijek MUSLIMAN ili BOSANAC (znam nije to bitno ali sam htjeo samo reci) sta je sa Bosnjacima iz Sandzaka? mislim da je bio Hasan Aga Zvizdic jedan jako poznat Bosnjak!

ako smo mi Bosnjaci nekad se zvali Bosnjani i samo se rijec Bosnjanin u Bosnjak promjenilo onda je i nas Kralj Tvrtko, Bosnjak! njegova slika bi trebala da bude prva na ovoj stranici. --92.225.45.143 (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You still don't speak english. Not importaint. Anyways, you find the image that is free to use, that is we don't have licensing problem with the image. Last image had those problems, becouse images were from google and other sites, and they had no right of free usage. Is that clear to you? I hope it is, becouse it is veary easy to understand that. --Wustefuchs (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you insist that it be said to you in English: Get rid of the f&%*& folk singers, otherwise people visiting the page might think that we all look like that (which you might, and you have every right to...), but the point is that most don't and might (just might) take offense at being represented in that way. Plus, I am not aware that Gradasevich had his pictures copyrighted back in 1830, if he did then I apologize and I am ready to take everything back, of course... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.203.86 (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Please communicate in English. This page is subject to WP:ARBMAC and conversation in non-English is considered disruptive. Toddst1 (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Veliki Bosnjaci
stavili ste jebenog izetbegovica i posranog silajdzica,jebo vas ceric a niste stavili Mesu Selimovica ili Ismeta Mujezinovica,Skendera Kulenovica,Osmana Djikica,Safvet beg Bašagića ako hocete politicara stavite nekoga Kotromanica nekog od nasih pradavnih banova i oni su neki bosnjaci majku vam jebem balkansku stoko neobrazovana,sto ne stavite Raziju Mujanovic ili Mirzu Delibasica i ovu djecu sto igraju za Bosnu po cijelom svijetu sto su po vazda na CNN i BBC, njih cijeli svijet zna,a ne vase usrane politicare.samo vam jos fale ćelo i juka.majku vam jebem da vam jebem zbog takvih sam iz bosne i otišo!!! pozdrav iz Frankfurta svim mojim zdravim Bosnjacima!!! (¨¨¨¨)

Dobro moze li onda Husein Kapetan, Safvet beg Bašagić i Miralem Pjanic umjesto "pjevaca"? Niko ali niko na svijetu ne moze trvrditi da su oni hrvati ili srbi ili marsovci. Usput u Bosni se kaze "cijeli svijet razumije", a u Njemackoj Wustenfuchs, sa n. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.187.200 (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

U redu Basagic je vec na listi. Stavite Hamdiju Pozderca. Poenta je stavite bilo koga drugog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.187.200 (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You need IMAGE THAT IS FREE TO USE, it is not allowed to use images that you don't have right to use!!! Understand that. And please, don't be primitive, don't use the words like "jebeni". And after all, if you don't speak english, why do you care what image is on the English wikipedia.--Wustefuchs (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Second thing, my name is spelled wrong, wich I see, but thing is I'm on Wikipedia since 2008., so I don't care about my nickname here, since everyone knows me as Wustefuchs. :) Other thing "Ceo svet razume" are words of Slobodan Milošević, and I just quoted him. You seam to be a man with low education, since you don't know much.--Wustefuchs (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least I knew the "n" in Wustenfuchs was missing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.239.163 (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

But seriously, why cannot we use the images from http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo%C5%A1njaci, instead of these folk singers? Since you insist that it be said to you in English or otherwise you will not consider it... An valid argument in Bosnian isn't good enough for some reason. And, yes they are and f... morons.

And once more, I need to repeat - you need image that is free to use. As you may see here, this image is nominated for deletation since 11 October 2010, and will be erased soon. Another thing, the file is free to use if it is in public domain or free to share and copy. Images from that picture are from google, and are not in public domain neither free to share and copy.--Wustefuchs (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

And I forgot, two chaps from that image aren't Bosniaks.--Wustefuchs (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you insist that it be said to you in English: Get rid of the f&%*& folk singers, otherwise people visiting the page might think that we all look like that (which you might, and you have every right to...), but the point is that most don't and might (just might) take offense at being represented in that way. Plus, I am not aware that Gradasevich had his pictures copyrighted back in 1830, if he did then I apologize and I am ready to take everything back, of course... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.203.86 (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Without Husein Captain Gradascevic this page is meaningless

--92.225.88.194 (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Exaggeration of Bosniak ethnicity
In the etymology paragraph, it is stated that Bosniak was initially used to describe those who were the initial inhabitants of Bosnia. That's fair enough. This cannot be played two ways though to incorporate Islamic Serbs/Croats around the world though. Take for example those in the Sandzak region of Montenegro/Serbia. How can these people be claimed as Bosniaks, when they have been inhabitants of Serbia/The Serbian empire all their life yet have been converted to Islam by the Ottoman regime which was particularly strong in the Sandzak region. They have nothing to do with Bosnia at all.

There needs to be a firm decision that either the Bosniak ethnicity, is either used to encompass all Islamic South Slavs, and has little to do with Bosnia itself, other than having the largest Islamic population of the Yugoslav states, or it is used strictly for those inhabitants of Bosnia, making those in the Sandzak Muslim Serbs.

Either way, what's posted on the article at the moment is incorrect and needs to be recitified asap 121.209.211.88 (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought that it is clear/accepted that Bosniak ethnicity constitute all South Slavs that converted to Islam? But in the geographical sense, all people from Bosnia(region) are Bosniaks. Ex: All people from Vojvodina(region) are "Vojvodjani" in geographical sense, not ethnic. Adrian (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You're entirely ignoring the history and the interactions between the people there. Simply because a land was once a part of the Serbian empire does not make all of its inhabitants Serbs. Only those in favor of a "Greater Serbia" have such a mindset. These people are not being "claimed" as the censuses speak for themselves.


 * Adrian, your wasting your time with someone who believes that "the term Bosniak was coined by Tito to describe Muslims living in Serbia and modern day Bosnia as a part of his plan to turn the world against the Serbs" and that "the Croat ethnic group comrpises of predominantly ethnic Serbs (Catholic Serbs)". -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 21:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok Producer, what is your strict definition of a Bosniak Lukic12345 (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The definition given in the introduction of the article is ok. You should turn to reliable sources for answers rather than the opinions of editors here. On a side note, you seem to be the one that is claiming and exaggerating. --  ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 11:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. The introducition gives us the definition and as I can see it is documented. I don`t see the problem, if there is any.. Adrian (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

sandzak/raska oblast was not "once" part of serbian empire, it was always part of serbian states , and its a place where stated first serbian state in 9th century called RASKA ... so that means muslims in raska are pure serbs , u can leave ur falsificated and biased "bosniac" history full of lies to someone else ... u can write fairytales about so called "bosniac" history but u can never answer on this question : how many "bosniacs" would exist in raska oblast today if there was no turkish occupation ? wold serbs exist there if there wwas no turkish occupation there ? YES. would "bosniacs" exist there if there was no turkish occupation ? NO ... would serbs exist even if they were not converted to orthodoxy by bysanthian empure ? YES, bysanthian cronicles manetion pagan serbs who were not christians at all ... thats big difference between serbs, croats and "bosniacs" ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.77.253.6 (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please cool down, what you are doing is way beyond NPOV and in some instances can be categorized as hate speech. If you want to change something, on wikipedia, please respect wiki rules.Adrian (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I said "land" since I was not limiting it to Sandzak.
 * Why don't you do a little research on why exactly they identify themselves more as Bosniaks than Serbs instead of simply claiming them as Serbs and clinging to territories from the 9th century as evidence.
 * Congratulations you've managed to work out that Islam is the main identifying component of the Bosniak identity. Just like Catholicism has been for the Croats and Orthodoxy for the Serbs. At the end of the day Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks and Montenegrins are one and the same. Who are you to claim that Serbs are more "authentic" than the other? -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 17:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

What he's trying to say I think is that there is no genuine history of a Bosniak people and the ethnicity created purely due to their Islamic faith as opposed to being a significant ethnic group throughout history. Croats and Serbs both have roots traced throughout history, and whilst they have been classified by their Catholic/Orthodox roots in the present day, it at least is somewhat accurate in terms of modern geography regarding to where they both had their empires (excluding the dispute about the Krajina/Republika Srpska regions). The Sandzak/Raska region however is one significant in Serb history (The empire was once called Raska/Rascia), yet the Turks came and converted civilians to Islam who have magically become Bosniak despite being miles away from Bosnia itself. I believe that the term Bosniak should only be used for all south slavs who Islamic and strictly that - no geographical or historical influence other than the Ottoman regime (so no mention of Trvtko and early Orthodox/Catholic/Pagan Bosnian bans) as there is no discernable history other than the conversion of Serbs/Croats to Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukic12345 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Bosnia also had its kingdom and leaders. Are you saying that the history of Bosnia did not play any role whatsoever in the cultivation or formation of the Bosniak identity? How can they be an "ethnicity created purely due to their Islamic faith" when they also share Bosnia's history and identify with it. Your using religion as a means to alienate Bosniaks from those bans as if being a different religion forfeits any rights to the generations before you.


 * Yes, Sandzak, or Raska if you prefer, was a part of the Serbian empire but it was also a part of the Ottoman empire which had it incorporated in to the Bosnia province. Keep in mind the Ottomans ruled over these territories for five centuries. It would be foolish to not take this and the recent history between the Muslim and Orthodox inhabitants there into account. This did not happen "magically" or overnight as you want it to look. -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 02:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're the one alienating them through religion by saying that the criteria to be Bosniak is 'South Slav with Islamic roots'. Regardless, the Bosniak ethnicity has little to do with Bosnian history itself (if your definition is used "Muslim South Slav"). As I stated, Trvtko and the other bans were all Serbs and Croats by your definition. The only real reason that the Bosniak ethnicity has its name, is because modern day Bosnia is the most densely populated South Slavic Muslim region, hence the name. As I said, I'm fine if you want to label all Islamic South Slavs Bosniaks, however the history of Bosnia has little to do with this ethnicity or it's formation, however you can't have it going both so that the inhabitants of the Sandzak region are considered Bosniaks, over Islamic Serbs. The term Bosniak can't be directed at both the medieval Bosnia and the more modern Islamic classification. It has to be one or the other. Either Bosniaks is a term for all South Slavs who are of Muslim descent - no relation to the historical Bosnian lands under the Serbian/Croatian empire, or that the Muslims from Bosnia have the title "Bosniak" and not those outside due to their lack of relation to the actual Bosnian empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukic12345 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I said that Islam is an identifying component of the Bosniaks in relation to Serbs and Croats. You're the one saying that they are "south slavs who [are] Islamic and strictly that" not me. Trvtko and the other bans of Bosnia were also Bosnian so stop trying to create this image that its mutually exclusive.


 * Let me make this clear for the last time. Neither I nor the article are declaring or claiming anyone as Bosniaks as those in Sandzak identify as such themselves. -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 13:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Rebith - request for sources / reworking
In the last paragraph of the "Rebirth" section the construction "presumably highlighting" and the paranthetical "a situation somewhat comparable to the Yugoslav option during the socialist period" without any supporting refs gives a distinctly wp:or tone. I've removed "That said, it is important to note" later in the paragraph as a blatant editorial instruction to the readers; can editors with access to relevant sources see whether these presumptions and observations are supported and balanced and either add refs or rework the existing text? Many thanks -- Timberframe (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is stil crap
Compared to the article on Britannica this looks like a childbook.Sleeping beauty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is Besagic being reffered as a Bosniak?
He considered himself a Croat,muslim Croat.Please remove him from the list of Bosniaks.Just because he's a muslim it doesn't mean he's automaticly Bosniak.Same goes for many muslim writers,the all considered themselfs Croats od Serbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Names and surnames
I put it back a part of the text removed without explanation:

''The most famous example of this is that of the stereotypical Bosniak characters Mujo and Suljo, whose names are actually Bosniak short forms of Mustafa and Sulejman. More popular still is the transformation of names that in Arabic or Turkish are confined to one gender to apply to the other sex. In Bosnian, simply taking away the letter "a" changes the traditionally feminine "Jasmina" into the popular male name "Jasmin". Similarly, adding an "a" to the typically male "Mahir" results in the feminine "Mahira".''

This part talks about name transformation in Bosnian language, it's purely grammar question, not political or smth else. Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. But your changes aren`t only about this. You are also removing some data from the article. Adrian (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I simplified the section with the most common names (because that's my professional occupation - research about names and surnames within Slavic nations and language transformation). Also I simplified the intro section. Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. It would be nice if you could also add some references to this data to avoid any possible confusion in the future. Adrian (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alan, your single edit makes 3 separate changes, the first of which concerns regions, not names; this change is unsourced and unexplained and as such I've reverted it in line with wiki policy. The second is also unsourced; I don't doubt your professional competence in this area, but this simply isn't how wiki works - you need to cite reliable sources which in general excludes personal research until it has been published, peer reviewed and quoted.  While your version may be more accurate, in the absence of any references to reliable sources I can't verify that so I've reverted to status quo.  Your third change introduces (or reinstates) a paragraph which is also unsourced and in addition is structured around terms including "most famous", "more popular still" and "stereotypical" - as statements of editorial opinion these simply aren't acceptable; for all these reasons I've removed the paragraph.  I've nothing against the intent of the changes, but in IMHO for an article most of whose sections are devoid of references the editorial direction should be to improve the standard of referencing, not to add further layers of unreferenced changes.

For my brothers :):):)
Here are 3 grand vezire´s from Bosnia who saw themselves as Croats e.g:

-Rüstem Pasha (Ottoman Turkish: رستم پاشا, Bosnian and Croatian: Rustem-paša Opuković) (ca. 1500 – 10 July 1561) was a Croatian from Bosnia who became an Ottoman general and statesman. He served as the Grand Vizier of Suleiman the Magnificent. Rüstem Pasha is also known as Damat Rüstem Pasha (Damat meaning Bridegroom to the Ottoman dynasty) and Hırvat Rüstem Paşa (Hırvat = Croat or Hrvat by Turkish historians).

-Hersekzade Ahmed Pasha or Hersekli Ahmed Paşa (Bosnian, Croatian: Stjepan Hercegović) was a Bosnian/Croatian Ottoman general and statesman from Hercegovina. Hersekli Ahmed Paşa is also known as Mahmut Paşa Hırvat (Hırvat = Croat) by modern Turkish historians.

-Mehmed-pasha Sokolovic (ca. 1510 – 79), born in eastern Bosnia near Visegrad, after having completed his higher education with outstanding honours, was asked by Suleiman II where he came from and he replied "from Croatia." (73) • "Suleiman the Magnificent - Sultan of the East" by Harold Lamb, it is clearly stated on pages 53, 117, 303, 311...that Sokollu Mehmet Paşa was Croat (ISBN=978-1-40677-271-5). Also in • "Lieber, Francis (1845). Encyclopædia Americana: A popular dictionary of arts, sciences,... Vol 13. Philadelphia: Columbia University Library." on page 345, Sokollu Mehmet Paşa is called renegade of Croatia.

A very important person in medieval Bosna was: -Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić (Kotor Varoš around 1350 – 1416) was a Ban of Croatia, Grand Duke of Bosnia and a Herzog of Split. He was the most prominent member of the Bosnian/Croatian noble House of Hrvatinić and the strongest of the three main large feudalists of early feudal medieval Bosnia. In 1403 he was named regent for Hungary, Croatia and Dalmatia, and was made Duke of Split. He was a prominent member of the Bosnian Church.

And that´s just a few persons.

You need to know Bosnia was only a small country in medieval times! The expansion of Bosnia went to Croatian cost.

The equivalence of the name of Bosniak and Croat in the early period of the Ottoman occupation of Bosnia is documented by the famous Turkish historian Aali (1542-1599) in his work Knhulahbar, also known as Tarihi Aali. He gave the following description of the properties of Croatian tribe (as he calls it) in Bosnia: As regards the tribe of the Croats, which is assigned to the river Bosna, their character is reflected in their cheerful mood; throughout Bosnia they are also known according to that river... [i.e. Croats = Bosniaks i.e. Bosnians]. Then follows an interesting passage describing virtues of the Croats in Bosnia. Let us cite it in Croatian, in Basagic's translation (the original text in the Arabic script and its translation can be seen in [Karihman], p. 78, with the Croatin translation being taken from Safvet-beg Basagic: Bosnjaci i Hercegovci u Islamskoj knjizzevnosti):

According the documents from the 15th and 16th centuries, Bosnian Muslims in central Bosnia and in Herzegovina called their language Croatian language and called themselves the Croats. Even today there are Bosnian Muslims with the second name Hrvat (= Croat). Probably the most interesting writings about the life in Ottoman Empire in the 16th century are numerous works published by Bartol Gyurgieuvits (1506-1566), who spent there 13 years as a slave.

The historical names of many officials in the Ottoman Empire reveal their origin (Hirwat = Hrvat or Horvat, which is a Croatian name for Croat):

Mahmut Pasha Hirwat (= Hrvat), Rustem Pasha Hrvat, Pijali Pasha Hrvat, Sijavus Pasha Hrvat etc. In the 16th century a traveler and writer Marco A. Pigaffetta wrote that almost everybody on the Turkish court in Constantinople knows the Croatian language, and especially soldiers. Marco Pigafetta in his "Itinerario" published in London in 1585 states: "In Istanbul it is customary to speak Croatian, a language which is understood by almost all official Turks, especially military men."

This can also be confirmed by the 1553 visit of Antun Vrančić, Roman cardinal, and Franjo Zay, a diplomat, to Istanbul as envoys of the Croat - Hungarian king to discuss a peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire. During the initial ceremonial greetings they had with Rustem Pasha Hrvat ( a Croat) the conversation led in Turkish with an official interpreter was suddenly interrupted. Rustem Pasha Hrvat asked in Croatian if Zay and Vrančić spoke Croatian language. The interpreter was then dismissed and they proceeded in the Croatian language during the entire process of negotiations.

Many of the Muslim Slavs in Bosnia-Herzegovina had a strong awareness of their Croatian descent, and even called themselves Muslim Croats, to distinguish from the Catholic Croats. Some of the most outstanding Croatian writers and intellectuals of the Muslim faith in Bosnia and Herzegovina are: • Edhem Mulabdic (1862-1954), • Adenaga Mesic (1868-1945), • Ivan Aziz Milicevic (1868-1950), • Safvet-beg Basagic (1870-1934), • Osman Nuri Hadzic (1869-1937), • Hasan Fehim Nametak (1871-1953), • Fehim Spaho (1877-1942), • Musa Cazim Catic (1878-1915), • Dzafer-beg Kulenovic (1891-1956), • Ahmed Muradbegovic (1898-1972), • Hasan Kikic (1905-1942), • Hamdija Kresevljakovic (1898-1959) • Alija Nametak (1906-1987), • Nahir Kulenovic (1929-1963), • Enver Colakovic (1913-1976), • Mehmedalija Mak Dizdar (1917-1971) • Muhamed Hadzijahic (1918-1978) • Asaf Durakovic (1940) • Ekrem Spahic (1945) etc. Anybody wishing to study the history of Islamic culture in Bosnia-Herzegovina seriously should consult numerous works of Hamdija Kresevljakovic (1888-1959), an outstanding Muslim Croat, member of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Zagreb, author of an important monograph about history of Croatian literature in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Biographies of important Muslim Croats can be found in his ``Kratak pregled hrvatske knjige u Herceg - Bosni (A short survey of Croatian literature in Herzeg - Bosnia) printed in Sarajevo in 1912. For more information see [Karihman]. It should be noted that the literary and scientific activity of such intellectuals has been severely suppressed during the 70 years' Yugoslav period, resulting that today a very small percentage of the entire Muslim Slav population in BiH and Croatia has the awareness of its Croatian roots.--Zrin22 (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * All that is truth, however, we can't add this to the article because it would only serve to make conflicts, and make article unstable. I don't know abut Sokolović, but for first two I know they were Croats.
 * Second, I think I solved problem with Croatian muslims - I did not add them to infobox picture, other things are cool.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * So in other words we shoudn't write a true and honest article because of the possible editor's conflict? LOL

paragraphs #1 and #2
In older literature (for example, in Ivo Andrić's opus The Bridge on the Drina) the Bosniaks have been called Turks, in view of their high standing vis-a-vis the Serbs and Croats of Bosnia during Ottoman rule, and this name had no particular negative connotation. Today, a hundred years after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, to call Bosniaks by this name is generally considered as something vulgar .Still, however, in certain occasions Bosniak do identify themselves as “Turks”.During the football match Croatia-Turkey at EURO 2008 IN Many cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosniaks were using Turkish flag and yelling “Ovo je Turska!” (“This is Turkey! “). During his meeting with Turkish prime minister Mustafa Cerić ,the religious leader of Bsnian muslims, has made a statement : “Say to the Turkish people :Turkey is our Mother. That how it was always, and it will remain like that.

Many cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina with Bosniak ethnic majority are named after ottoman leaders.I.e. After Mehmed-paša Sokolović was named street in downtown of Sarajevo.("ulica Mehmed-paše Sokolovića") .In town of Bihać there is a street named after Suleiman the Magnificent.("Ulica Sulejmana Veličanstvenog").

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

Also, do not delete this again claming I am nationalistic, and then repost your nonsense again later. BTW, if you do not understand what the data above means, let me explain it to you: Turkey might be our "mother", but the Turks *certainly* are not our fathers, or grand-fathers, or grand-grandfathers, or male ancestors in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.98.64 (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

reflist
(references 3. and on)

Discussion
PRODUCER, please outline your main objections to these two paragraphs, and to their sources. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


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

I agree, no special section. How would you phrase the paragraph for the History section? (I'm trying to see what you mind the most, so how would you phrase it while keeping the bare facts intact?) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

For Sarajevo   two independent sources (from Bosnia and herzegovina) are more that enough. For Bihać is source Local police website (Una-Sana canton police department) Other source (Oslobođenje, Sarajevo-X etc.) are Bosniak press and portals...   Producer has certain problem:he believes that he has monopoly on a truth. Therefore he has right to delete everything he dislikes. Even sourced ones and even from the talk pages-by which right??? Just for the illustration: He included rumours about Mate Boban , he included the paragraph about Croatian propaganda, but he persistently removes the very well sourced parts about Bosniak propaganda:      „removing idiotic nationalist propaganda“ is his (very civil!! ) edit summary A statement that I delete all negative from articles about Croatian politician is a blatant LIE as well as his fake google results about Karađorđevo meeting. There are lot of bad things written about these leaders which I did not even try to delete-Everybody who can read English can see it. @DIREKTOR: that story about ustaše reminds me on a certain anegdote from the period of NDH:
 * Ante Pavelić has a meeting of his cabinet and has a speech
 * Pavelić:Bosnian Muslims are the flower of Croatian people !(his famous sentence)
 * Some minister:Yes, indeed, they are : Sunflower  --Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Identification of Bosniaks
Members of some ethnic group can often identify themselves with another ethnic group(s) although sometimes have nothing or very little in common. Therefore:
 * Germans do identify themselves with Scandinavians-although they are genetically only 6% Germanic and 45% Celtic and 30% Baltic and/or Slavic (according to Swiss institute for genetics,Igenea ))
 * Spaniards identify thmeselves with Romance-language speaking Europeans-although they are genetically much closer to Arabs
 * Hungarians-identify themselves Finns and other Finno-Ugric peoples-although they are genetically Slavic or Celtic
 * Bosniaks-identify themseves with Turks!-despite the thing that they are genetically much closer to other South Slavs (Croats,Serbs,Montenegrins...)--Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to stress that Ceric's comments should in general be taken 'cum grano salis', since he also for instance said that the Congress of Berlin was in 1897 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJLbAoLuI1Y, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Berlin),... just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.106.15 (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This article about so called "Bosniaks" is disaster.
I do not know where to start but this is just rape of historical facts. 1. Bosna is region same as Hercegovina is. 2. King Tvrtko Kotromanic was Serbian King crowned by Serbian Nemanjic Dinasty Crown. 3. Stecci are only present in Herzegovina and are written in Cyrilic alphabet. I was so grossed out reading this article's lies that i couldn't read any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Fixalot (talk • contribs) 05:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to try to seriously answer your objections. First of all, I agree that a lot of these articles on Wikipedia about the history in former Yugoslavia get 'worked over' by people whose zeal far outweighs their knowledge.

to 1. Bosnia is a region, but so is Serbia, Slavonia, Slovenia, Dalmatia, and Montenegro. The argument can go either way. Serbs for instance were more of a social and religious (orthodox Christian) group than anything else prior to the 19th century. Does that make them less of a nation or diminishes their right to say that they are Serbs? What if some people really feel that Bosnia is indeed their country and it defines their identity, and that it was not all just a political stunt by Izetbegovic & co? Can you consider that?

to 2. Correct, anything else would be a falsification of history. But what was the history of his family up to that point - they were rulers of Bosnia. Again, that does not mean that Bosnia is not a region as well, or that it automatically establishes a Bosnian nation.

to 3. Yes, they are in Cyrilic but the way your argument goes it is basically an anachronism. It is good to know that there are some things in the region that we can both identify with. And,... I do not want to be disrespectful to you in any way, still they only occur in Bosnia-Herzegovina so you identify with Bosnia at least partially as well, or am I reading to much into your last comment? BTW, where in your opinion does Herzegovina end? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.106.15 (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wonderful answer, its nice to get fine portion of reason from time to time on articles about these kind of issues.
 * I will just add line or two on stećci:


 * - stećci occurs in Bosnia as well as in Herzegovina - there is more then 60000 in Bosnia and Herzegovina;
 * - we can read three kind of script on stećci - glagoljica, bosanćica and čirilica;
 * - all three main Christian religion in Bosnia (Bosnian Church, Chatolic and Orthodox) used stećke and after Ottoman conquest even Bosnians who converted to Islam used stećak as tombstone only to gradually turn stećak into nišan.
 * Thanks and cheers !--Santasa99 (talk) 08:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Question?
Why is the picture of Tvrtko Kotromanić in the article? Under the picture it is written :"The 14th century Bosnian king Tvrtko Kotromanić, is seen as an important aspect of the heritage of Bosniak people and Bosnians in general."

I have to repeat, Bosnian Muslims (or as they call thmeselves Bosniaks) had no remembrance of the Bosnian kingdom nor the Bosnian state, so by that logic they had no remembrance of king Tvrtko. So now can somebody explain to me why "king Tvrtko Kotromanić, is seen as an important aspect of the heritage of Bosniak people"? Stürmkrieger (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


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

Then his picture should be under the History of Bosnia(ns) article, not Bosnian Muslims, if we want to be accurate here. Hxseek (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When you can actually refer to this ethnicity as Bosniaks then I might even pay attention to your argument. I know you are a serious edior so this is disapointing. Polargeo (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also if you wish to place the picture in that article as well then I am sure it will be of benefit to wikipeida. Polargeo (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Again a foreign "genius", who comes and enlightens us all with his wisdom. Ok I agree with you, Bosnian Muslims (o.a.t.c.t. Bosniaks) didn't suddenly turn up in Bosnia from Turkey. I don't understand what is this picture doing in this article with an idiotic text under it. It's like putting a picture of queen Teuta in the article about Croats, it doesn't make sense, because she isn't a part of the history of Croatian people. We are talking about Bosnia here, which is a lot more complex than the examples you are giving, and I don't give a damn about Persia or Egypt.

Now to the point Porlageo, you don't know much about Bosnia, just like I don't know much about the country you are from. The main difference between you and me is that I don't get involved in a discussion about your country. And I agree with Hxseek that the picture of king Tvrko should be in the article history of Bosnia.

Here is what a historian, Ivan Lovrenović wrote: "Nema, naime, u muslimanskoj pisanoj i usmenoj tradiciji u Bosni bilo kakvih referenci na bosansku državu i bosansko kraljevstvo"

(translation: "There isn't, in fact, in muslim written or spoken tradition in Bosnia any reference to Bosnian state and Bosnian kingdom"

So now can you explain to me why is king Tvrtko an "important aspect of heritage of Bosniak people" when they have no remembrance of him, Bosnian state and the Bosnian kingdom. Stürmkrieger (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Heritage does not exactly mean the same as 'muslim written or spoken tradition'. You have to give me that. There are however references in the traditions to for instance Kulin Ban AFAIK. Anyway, this is really a question of the whole Bosniak = Bosnian vs. Bosniak = Muslim argument. What about Gradasevic he took the side of Bosnia against the Ottoman empire? You would probably like to see in it a reaction to the curtailing of his rights and privileges and of those around him, but I see an uprising against the Ottoman state for abolishing the Bosnian autonomy. One more thing, I just wanted to answer this because I think your comment deserves it, and the "ad hominem" response of the person below me does more to confirm your position than to refute it. I do not share it: Tvrtko is relevant since the Kotromanics were Bosnian nobility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.106.15 (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What a joke, everyone can read more about the nonsensical views of "Sturmer" and the other idiotic users on this Croatian nationalist website . 109.175.54.138 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nationality/Ethnicity of Meša Selimović
It appears to me that the statement here by Meša Selimović is one of unity. He is not denying his Bosniak roots in any way and in fact says the two things are inseparable to him. Remember John F. Kennedy said "Ich bin ein Berliner", many people speak to please their audience. The term Bosniak was not used as it is now anyway. To take this as meaning he is a Serb in the modern context and not a Bosniak and to edit war his picture out of the article infobox is very poor. I would understand it based on nobody before the Bosnian War being a Bosniak but on the idea that he was a Serb and not a Bosniak seems to me to be a misreading of the situation. He came from a Muslim family in Tuzla. Those are pretty strong Bosniak qualifications and he does not deny his roots. Who knows what he would be classed as if alive in the post Yugoslavia era, however, I do doubt it would be as a Serb. Polargeo (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having received no comment I have put his picture back in. By birth he was unquestionably a Bosnian Muslim, he in no way denies the importance of his heritage and ethnicity is not determined simply by where you happen to live at any given time and what it says on your passport/ID papers. Polargeo (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If Mesa Selimovic can "become" a Serb, then Bosniaks are an ethnoreligious group, similar to Jews, because their entire ethnicity is determined by their religious beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.117.211 (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

By the same argument so are the Croats because of Andric :-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.106.15 (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Jovan Ducic, King Tvrtko
I must protest! Jovan Ducic has never been a Bosnjak, he was a Serb from Bosnia(Bosnian/Bosanac). Who wrote this article? I would really like to hear his arguments about this. And one more thing, king Tvrtko wasn't the king of Bosnjaks, he was the king of Bosnians-Bosnian Serbs. Please correct this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan Orelj (talk • contribs) 21:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

king Tvrtko was the king of Bosnia and all the countries he has conquered. he was a Bosniak / Bosnjanin king of all people who have lived in his kingdom. Tvrtko conquered large parts of Serbia and the Serbs of this country had accepted his rule. Tvrtko was crowned in Bosnia (Mile) to the King

http://www.bosnahistorija.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=131:bosanska-kruna-i-tvrtkovo-krunisanje-kraljem&catid=1:srednjovjekovna-bosna-od-700-1463&Itemid=65

--78.52.69.109 (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree.Ducic and Davorin Popovic aren't Bosniaks. They should be excluded from the list.((GriffinSB) (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)) Bosniak and Bosnjanin are not the same.all Bosnian kings from Kotromanić dynasty were catholics from 1340 onwards and the other guy was also a catholic.--31.47.11.31 (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Images of notable Bosniaks for the Template:Bosniaks infobox
Wich notable Bosniaks should be included at the Template:Bosniaks infobox? We need suggestions.

I added this four, some were removed (like Nadarević or Bešlić) becausetheir image were removed or didn't fit in; also some weren't worthy of mentioning, like Haris Silajdžić. Another problem are copyright violations and some notable persons don't have images. I tryed to find compromise, because many users complained that some Bosniaks aren't Bosniaks or some Croats/Serbs are Bosniaks.

-- Wusten  fuchs  18:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If my knowledge of history still is all right, I think king Tvrtko I should be present here. About the problems about the "Bosniaks aren`t Bosniaks" you should`t pay much attention to it, or you will never do anything here. If there are solid sources about someone`s ethnic affiliation then that should be more than enought for someone to be considered as a part of that ethnic group. Adrian (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Friend, no problem with me. But just look at the discussion page and history of edits when "suspicious" persons are added. Croats or Serbs will claim he wasn't Bosniak but Croat or Serb, Bosniaks will denie and so on. But I'm glad you proposed Tvrtko, I'm considering to later add total number of votes, so we will see.-- Wusten  fuchs  21:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that there could be a lot of problems.. but wikipedia is all about verifiability and that is all that matters WP:SOURCE. In this case, since you are creating a new list, if you have a solid source that a person is of Bosniak ethnicity than there should be no problems, and even if they appear, it should be easily discussed. Voting is a great idea, but voting with arguments, not simply a vote just like that. A vote without arguments should be dismissed. It would be great if this vote would be supervised by an administrator. I wish you luck and if I can help please let me know. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style (infoboxes) says:
 * This is not article or list of notable Bosniaks. This is article about ethnic group. The pictures of notable Bosniaks would only prevent the readers to "identify key facts at a glance".
 * Also, the Template:Infobox ethnic group says nothing about the pictures of the notable people that declared themselves as members of a certain ethnic group.
 * The purpose of the infobox is not to be a navigation bar, but to to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears, in this case about the ethnic group.
 * Additionally, it is obvious that it can create a space for disruptive editing when there are disputes about ethnicity of some notable people.
 * My conclusion: Although it is obviously common practice to place such pictures in the infoboxes, I think that this practice violates requests of the Manual of Style (infoboxes) and therefore I am against it. If there is consensus that list of notable members of one ethnic group should be presented to the readers, there are navigaton bars and other types of templates and lists available for this purpose which can be added in the article in separate template.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My conclusion: Although it is obviously common practice to place such pictures in the infoboxes, I think that this practice violates requests of the Manual of Style (infoboxes) and therefore I am against it. If there is consensus that list of notable members of one ethnic group should be presented to the readers, there are navigaton bars and other types of templates and lists available for this purpose which can be added in the article in separate template.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, however, since rest of ethnic gruops has this in their infoboxes, I don't see a reason why only Bosniaks wouldn't have this. Maybe in the time we remove this for all ethnic groups. Right now I need suggestions.-- Wusten  fuchs  15:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is also a problem with the flag of Bosniaks. Template:Infobox ethnic group says: “Please be cautious about using this: most ethnic groups do not have a strongly associated flag.” Flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina used in this template is not a flag of the Bosniaks. If you read the second paragraph of the flag article, you will notice that the flag is flag of " three constituent peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina: Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs" which also have the "stars, representing Europe". This flag was adopted in 1998. Comments are welcome. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed. Replaced with more suitable image. -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 18:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice, I'm glad to see rest of you working here to... no proposals?-- Wusten  fuchs  02:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I propose Mehmed Spaho and Husein Gradaščević. -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 10:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeup, those were good chaps, but we don't have their images... If you find one, problem is solved.-- Wusten  fuchs  15:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You called me, but I do not have much to say. At any rate, I think that if Izetbegovic is going to be on there, that Fikret Abdić should be too. I mean think about it, many people are against Izetbegovic and his ideology - evidence being that SDP won big time at the last election. Perhaps Mak Dizdar or Musa Ćazim Ćatić. I suggested the last two as they are on paper money in B&H - I thought there might be more. Well, leave me be in my cell/dungeon. (LAz17 (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)). Perhpas Raif Dizdarević is worth consideration, as he was a high official in the communist era. (LAz17 (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)). There may be someone useful here, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina. So that's all I have to suggest, perhaps none of these dudes are any good, perhaps they are. It's not my concern for now, for I am deeply insulted by wikipedia's actions against me. There's nothing more I have to add in this discussion, so hopefully what I said may be of some use. (LAz17 (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC))


 * I disagree that Fikret Abdić should be there. Alija Izetbegović did not side with the  aggressors, the Serbian VRS and JNA, in the war, but Fikret Abdić did.
 * How many images can there be?
 * I don't think that there should be more than two singer, or at least of the same genre.
 * There should be at least one general of the Bosnian army or war hero (examples Rasim Delić, Safet Zajko, Safet Isović, Sefer Halilović etc...)

Slazem se Raif Dizdarevic, Dzemal Bijedic, Sefer Halilovic, i vecina gore nabrojanih su vjerovatno puno bolji izbor od ovih sto su sada prikazani. I pazi boga ti, dvojca su zivi pa bi se mogli i upitati da li su saglasni da im se slika ovdje nadje, jer se eto zbog autorskih prava mnoge slike (osim naravno Alijine...) uz najbolju volju ne mogu staviti na Wikipediju, dok svako normalan naravno ne odustane.

A sto se tice da li da stavimo Zeleta ili Alena, kako hocete...

the image was previously very much better than the present. Do they use the picture where King Tvrtko begins as the first was that much better. sorry my english is not so good --92.225.38.220 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * We will use images that don't have copyright issues, and ofcourse, we will not use persons wich can be claimed by more sides, especially those who don't have clear ethnicity.-- Wusten  fuchs  10:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey WuesteNfuchs tell me something, why is there always a photo of Izetbegovic that does not have any copyright issues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.106.15 (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hallo W-fuchs! You invited me 3-4 months ago to join discussion on this matter, but since I rarely checking Wikipedia, at least my profil page anyway, maybe I am too late. So, is this settled ? If not (and I believe that image should be constantly changing, developing/working in progress, so that we have several options at disposal which we can rotate from time to time) I would really like to see at least one of two founders of the modern Bosniac/Bosnian nation - Anto Knežević or Ivan Frano Jukić or both. They were Chatolic Franciscans and that fact brings diversity which we always held dear to us and considered pinnacle of what Bosnia and Herzegovina meant as an idea. Furthermore, these to giants of modern Bosniac/Bosnian nationhood should find their place in this article in a way adequate to their importance and magnitude of their idea of Bosniac nation. Don't you think that should be appropriate ? Thanks and cheers!--Santasa99 (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Bosniaks
The first picture with King Tvrtko was in the beginning very well. No Tvrtko no Bosnia, no Bosnia, no Bosniaks!

The Bosniaks, are now known, as one of the oldest peoples of Europe. --92.226.58.166 (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

a very good picture of the Bosniaks! 5* The fleur de lis above the picture looks very very good! 5* god job! --78.52.68.152 (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No king Tvrtko, no Bosniaks. No Bosniaks, no Bosnia. The image without the fleur de lis and the first Bosniak (King Tvrtko) sucks. --92.225.40.126 (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Map
The map is disputed.

How on earth is there a bosniak majority in south of Kosovo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVNOJist (talk • contribs) 22:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's because they are included ethnic Gorani who are muslim. Since the Gorani are muslim and identify themselves as Serb, they are automatically Bosniak accoridng to these guys since a South Slav can't be Muslim and not Bosniak. A joke really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.210.252 (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

ARE YOU GOING TO RESOLVE THIS DISPUTE OR IS IT GOING TO REMAIN LIKE THIS FOREVER?


 * What "these guys", Bosniac editors? Who told you that Gorani are Serbs in the first place, Šešelj - little blue bird ? Goranci or Gorani making choice for themselves - they don't need Serbs nor Albanians nor Bosniacs, nor us for that matter, to give them directions or instruction in form of dictate how they should feel and identify, they chose Bosniac identity for themselves - THE END !--Santasa99 (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, why is map disputed - its not ! Map shows clearly and accurately distribution of Bosniac on Balkan, nothing irregular nor disputed there.--Santasa99 (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory Article
In the first paragraph, it is clearly stated that the terms "Bosniak" and "Bosnian" are distinct as Bosniak refers to muslim south-slavs and Bosnians to those from the country itself. If you wish this definition to remain consistent, Tvrtko must be removed from the infobox as he is clearly not of Bosniak descent, but is rather a Bosnian Serb/Croat. Tvrtko is as much of Bosniak as Mladic and Karadzic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.210.252 (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Your theory is ridiculous! I think they are just hostile to the Bosniaks of grants them no freedom King Tvrtko was a proud Bosnjanin/Bosniak. The crest of the Bosniaks and the same coat of arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina 1992-1998 is the emblem of King Tvrtko. Between the 6 golden lilies is the blade of the sword of King Tvrtko. The Bosniaks are mostly identify with King Tvrtko and his coat of arms. The theory that the King Tvrtko was a Serb and he was in Serbia crowned as king, is disproved a long time. Wikipedia and some anti-Bosnian fanatic but brave fight against the Bosniaks truth, how do I get to see again and again. --92.226.57.63 (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Since when are Gorani people of south Kosovo Bosniaks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorani_people They don't even speak the same language nor was their teritory ever a part of Bosnia???only thing they shared is the Islamic faith and they were both part of Ottoman Empire.Does that mean that Macedonian or Bulgarians muslims are also Bosniaks?Jesus Christ people,who writes this??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of Bosniak term
As I am very well informed on this topic, since I am actually studying the history of my country, I must say few things which will be explanatory about the misunderstandings on the term Bosniak and the history of Bosniak people. As all other smaller nations around the world, surrounded by a little bigger nations, (in this case Serbs and Croats), the Bosniak people where undermined in every possible aspect of national progress during the periods of Nationalism (19th century) and Fascism and Communism (early 20th century). So, in most official documents written during these periods, in the public media of our neighbors in Serbia and Croatia, the Bosniaks were always presented as a irrelevant factor of Balkan. They were called to accept either Serbian or Croatian nationality by mere propaganda policy. Of course, this propaganda did not impress Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina and parts of Sandjak region of today Serbia and Montenegro (Sandjak belonged to Bosnian Eyalet - Ottoman administrative province from 15-19 century), because Bosniak culture is at least as old as the Serbian and Croatian are. Propaganda stays propaganda and they can speak for the next 500 years, Bosniaks were never, and they will never be Serbs or Croats. Of course, there are numerous Bosniaks who influenced different aspects of our national identity, starting from the Middle ages, through the Ottoman period and to the modern times.

Now few historical fact files:

- "Bosniak" as a term, was firstly used during the Middle ages (1250-1450) for describing the people of Medieval Bosnia.

- "Bosniak" is a Hungarian pronunciation of "Bosnian".

- The reason why the Hungarian version (with K at the end) of the term "Bosnian" was so dominant in numerous numbers of medieval documents is simply because the influence of Hungary during the Middle ages was very strong across Bosnia, and many other lands in this part of the world (including Croatia and Serbia).

- The religion of Bosniaks in the Medieval period was mostly the "Bosnian church", which was not Papal Catholic, and not Orthodox Christian. The believe system had some very specific points different from the standard Christianity (like the believe that Christ was not God, and that luxury in Churches is not needed). The "Bosnian Church" religion had some strong similarity with Gothic Arianism for example. So, most historians are explaining the fact that large numbers of the "Bosnian church" followers took over Islam when the Ottomans came, by the fact that Islam and Bosnian church were very similar concepts of believing in God.

- Pope from Rome called for several crusades (led by Hungarians) against Bosnian church followers, specially during the 13th Century, and there where some very notable Bosniak victories against these crusades, which proved incapable of getting rid of this "heresy".

- The most notable Bosniak leaders of this time where for example "Ban Kulin from 12 century", "Ban Matej Ninoslav from 13th (who defeated some of the crusades), then later came the official "Kingdom" title with King Tvrtko I in 14th Century.

- During the Ottoman period (1450-1878), Bosniaks were the ruling representative class of people in Bosnian Eyalet of Ottoman empire, and many notable individuals called them self "Bosnyaks" or Bosnians in official documents of Ottoman administration.

- During the 18th century, Bosniaks where also present as a Corps of Prussian cavalry Hussars. The background of this Prussian unit was historically from Bosnia. Also, in Polish and Danish armies of the same period, there where Bosniak military regiments with the background from Bosnia.

- The local terms: "Bošnjak", "Bošnjaci", "Bošnjani", "Bosanac" "Bosanci", or foreign: "Bosnian", "Bosnians", "Bosnier", "Bosniaken", "Bosniaks", "Bosnyaks" are all describing the same national identity. So, if you would come to Bosnia and call any Bosnian (or Bosniak) any of these names, he would positively understand it and would say to you, "Yes, that is what I am". :)

- On the other hand, if you meet somebody in Bosnia who wouldn`t like to be called that way, you have 100% for sure, talking to a Serb or Croat from Bosnia.

Greetings from Bosnia!

sep.8.2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosna7 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Nation Building of the Bosniaks
We are all well aware that the Nation of the Bosniaks is relatively new (1992, if I am not mistaking) as a derivative of a 1971 recognized Nation of the Muslims, by the SFRJ council.

This being an encyclopedia, it should explain and define that contemporary terminus "Bosniak", and not medieval meanings of that word which is a regional and not a religious or ethnic definition known today. (same as medieval Croats, Slavonians, Dalmatians, Vojvodjans, Rascians, Docleans).

The medieval terms Bosnians, Bosniaks, Bosnjans are exclusively regional definitions, and may aswell mean a Bosnian Croat, Bosnian Serb or a Bosnian Muslim. Eventough Bosnian Muslims defined themselves ethnicly as Ottoman Citizens namely Turks.

Regarding Nation Building, in the process of nation building the policy defines which national myths should be used for the nations canon. Very often this myths are famous battles, because they are the best case for defining who are we, and who are they.

The modern Nation of the Bosniaks, still doesn't have a defined nations canon, because there is no consensus which national myths should be used in its defining. To put it simple, should it be the christian or the ottoman medieval national myth, one excluding the other.

The discourse over King Tvrtko Kotromanic is the core of this problem. He is a King over a region that had a large influx of expelled bulgarian and serbian christian gnostic sectarians (bogumils), after the great schism 1054 the christianity in Bosnia fell between two blocks, seen as heretical by the Pope and the Byzantines, it was eradicated in the course of the hungarian crusades.

The main controversy is the King Tvrtko (Stjepan (Stefan) Tvrtko I. Kotromanic), who was baptised as a catholic but crowned as a serbian king (the tittle Stefan for serbian kings) - Croats namely define medieval bosnian catholics as Croats, because after 1102 Croatian state seized to exist. King Tvrtko also sent a large army on the famous Battle of Kosovo against the Ottomans, aiding the forces of the serbian Prince Lazar.

The modern Nation of the Bosniaks, is a predominantly muslim Nation - of Ottoman tradition (Ottomans being their traditional ancestors - ethnic ancestors fell under the proces of assimilation, as seen everywhere in the world). The medieval Bosnian state aswell as religion got completly eradicated by the Ottomans, in such breaking the nations continuum. Taking King Tvrtko in the nations canon of the Bosniaks would mean putting a historical enemy of their Ottoman ancestors, as their ancestor, which is highly controversial in a nations building proces, because it excludes one another. While in the nation canons of the Croats and the Serbs he fits as any other medieval ruler, for the Croats he was a bosnian catholic, for the Serbs, he was a serbian king.

More controversies will arise, as long as the Bosniaks/Muslims or to be specific non-Serbs and non-Croats, don't have a consensus over which national myths one should use in the nations defining. Bosnia today is not and is highly improbable, that it will ever be a national state of the Bosniaks (having a relative minority in comparisson to the Christian majority 51% to 48%). Using medieval christian myths such as King Tvrtko, over the ottoman ones seems highly improbable, hence their strong ottoman and non-existent medieval bosnian tradition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.41.199 (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, Bosnia is the ethnic state of Bosnians, and "Bosniak" is just a compromise, an unfortunate one that is,... Secondly, the Ottomas are gone and that was 150 years ago. But I agree with a lot of what you have said, your facts are correct, but not so your interpretations, and certainly not your conclusions. Your thinking is along the lines of the Christian tradition, not nations or peoples or ethnicities. Bosnian Croats for example have the historical right to call themselves Bosniaks, Ivan Lukic has done just that, although counting him to Bosniaks today (see article!!!) is an anachronism. The reason is that Serbs and Croats do not want the Bosnian state. In fact, Serbs and Croats have problems tolerating the Bosnian nation, and even more so than "Muslims by nationality", or Muslims in the generally accepted (religious) sense. I assure you that I have never felt as anything other than Bosnian, and that I still feel that the "Bosniak" nationality has been forced on me, alongside the Dayon agreement which now serves as the constitution. Let me point out that the majority of the laws from before the war are still in place, but the constitution has been replaced as a result of war. Of course, it's legitimacy is questionable.... and, so is the term Bosniak, but that is all part of an ugly compromise. Since we cannot change the terminology now, we will (unfortunately) have to use it. But just because the term Bosniak found its use in 1992 (or rather 1995), it does not mean that the whole ethnic group has been created on the same day, nor did the term itself - it is simply an archaic term meaning Bosnian. I also assure you that I have never felt as "Muslim by nationality" either. Yugoslav? Yes, sure. Bosnian? Well, that's more like it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.106.15 (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
The visitors to this page are currently being greeted with a message suggesting that the whole article is biased. However, only one image is under dispute ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BosniaksToday.svg) and it could easily be substituted for another the image (for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BosniaksToday-2011-08-08.svg) in order to settle the dispute before the article is locked. The state of affairs is unfortunate and clearly needs to be fixed. Any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.97.64 (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I also think we need to remove the image of King Tvrtko from the page. As one previous poster commented, King Tvrtko belongs to all 3 constitutive peoples/nations of Bosnia-Herzegovina, not just Muslim Bosniaks. Tvrtko was a Bosnian king and a Christian who lived before there were any Slavic Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Since this article is about Muslim Slavs (formerly "Muslims by nationality" according to the Yugoslav census) and not all people from Bosnia-Herzegovina, it isn't fair to say that Tvrtko is solely a part of Bosniak heritage and not Bosnian Serb or Bosnian Croat heritage. All three groups can equally claim Tvrtko; he was a Roman Catholic and the son of a Serbian princess (also crowned king at the Mileševa monastery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile%C5%A1eva_monastery); his ancestors came from both the Croatian Šubić & Serbian Nemanjić royal families, and his actions as ruler laid the foundations for modern Bosnian-Herzegovinian statehood. I propose that we keep his image on the Wikipedia page for Bosnians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnians), since King Tvrtko was the original Bosnian! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.66.118 (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

OK can we just say that all 3 groups can claim him and so can the Bosniaks? But my post was about the disputed map, which, unlike the diverging perceptions of history, can be fixed. Let's please be pragmatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.106.15 (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

removing the "editsemiprotected" for now; this clearly needs discussion/consensus; it's not a simple "Change X to Y"  Chzz  ► 01:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Fikret Abdić
Fikret Abdic was a Yugoslav and no Bosniak. He has never called a Bosniak! just because he was a Muslim, Maybe it does not mean that he is a Bosniak. The picture of Fikret Abdic must be deleted! --92.225.32.129 (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

When did the muslims from Herzegovina become Bosniaks?
Muslims from Bosnia started calling themselfs Bosniaks in 1993.Only 18 years ago.But howcome the muslims in Herzegovina are called Bosniaks since they were always part of Herzegovina and not Bosnia.Same goes for Sandzak/Raska region in Serbia.How the hell are muslims from that area Bosniaks when they were part of Serbia(Sandzak pashaluk),seperate aprt of the Ottoman empire.Who wrote this article?Hans Christian Andersen?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Herzegovina is a region, just like Bosnia in a country called Bosnia and Herzegovina, with three ethnicity Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats. And that's the reason why they are Bosniaks. They can call themself Muslim Herzegovinians, but they are Bosniaks. And for Sandzak, that region was de facto part of Bosnia and Herzegovina almost until First World War and many people down there still feel like Bosniaks, but not all. The number is, as much as I know, declining. It should be part of BiH according to Berlin congres. Sutorina should also be BiH according to AVNOJ. AnelZukic (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Images
Let me draw your attention to the list of notable Croats Josip Broz Tito, Vladimir Prelog, Goran Ivanišević, Blanka Vlašić, Ivo Andrić. NOW, let us take a look at the list of notable Bosniaks Alija Izetbegović, Safvet Bašagić, Dino Merlin, Vahid Halilhodzic,... Notice the absence of Franjo Tudjman on the Croat page and the prominent placement of Alija Izetbegovicon this one, yet absence of Raif Dizdarevic, Mesa Selimovic, etc. Also I do not see Dino Dvornik or Miroslav Blazevic on the Croat webpage, but here we see Dino Merlin and Vahid Halilhodzic... I mean seriously, this is the first thing that somebody will see when they google Bosniaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.106.15 (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What does Croatia have to do with Bosnia?

"Pictures"
Can we add a picture of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Franjo_Juki%C4%87, he was one of the truest Bosniaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.201.106.131 (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Tvrtko was not a Bosniak
Tvrtko was the first Bosnian king, but he was not a Muslim. He was a Catholic most of his life, as were the majority of Bosnian rulers besides those who belonged to the indigenous Bosnian Church. Bosniaks (ethnic Muslim Slavs of Bosnia-Herzegovina) crystallized as an ethnicity around the time of Ottoman rule in the Balkans, not before. Tvrtko was indisputably Bosnian, but he was not Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.66.118 (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Bosniaks as an ethnic group exist since the times before the Ottomans, changing ones religion does not invalidate ones heritage. And if you meant to say that Bosniaks didn't exist as a nation until the Ottomans- well, duh, nationalism wasn't even invented back then.

Indeed Tvrtko was Bosnian king.Not a Bosniak(they exist since 1993) nor a muslim. I see that Besagic is also reffered to as a Bosniak,while he considered himself a Croat.Besagic was a muslim but that doesn't mean he was a bosniak.

The grandmufti of muslims in the west-Balkans was Džafer-beg Kulenović,a Croat.The first mosque in North American soil in Toronto Canadas was called a Croatian Mosque,they renamed it only in the 90's.Dzaferbeg's late son Nahid Kulenovic was a member of the Croatian Revolutionary Brotherhood,a nationalist movement in the 70's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Tvrtko belongs on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.66.118 (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly.Tvrtko belongs to all 3 constitutive peoples of Bosnia and Herzegvina,the Bosnians,not Bosnian Muslims or so-called Bosniaks. Bosniak is a term that was introduced by Bosnian Muslim politicians.The people never declared themselfs as Bosniaks.The last population concesus was held in 1991 and the people who their politicians called Bosniaks declared themselfs as Muslims by nationality.Until the new population concensus is held in Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosniaks do not exist as a nation.The only document that declares them as Bosniaks is the Dayton Peace Agreement,which brought the end to the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
 * Serbs and Croats in Bosnia clearly rejected the Bosnian identity (their attempts to tear the country apart hints at that, don't you think) and thus they left Bosniaks as the inheritors of the Bosnian identity. Nobody says it isn't also their history, but that dosen't change the fact they rejected it and instead prefer to identify with Bosnias neighbors. Also to claim that Bosniaks do not exist, when today you can walk through Bosnia and find over two million people who claim that they are just that, is just another continuation of the rhetoric of Karadzic and his likes and also hints at an gross denial of reality.

Actually Tvrtko called himself a Bosniak in written documents. Bosniak is an old term for Bosnian. Since Croats and Serbs from Bosnia rejected the Bosnian Identity as their main one and Bosnian came to mean anyone living in Bosnia the old term was simply adopted by the ethnic group that held Bosnia together for the last hundred years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.237.135 (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Tvrtko never called himself BOŠNJAK, he used the term BOŠNJANIN, to talk about all people of his state, as Rascian rullers used term Rašljanin for people from Rascia! But that terms were teritorrial, not ethnic! People from Rascia, Bosnia and Duklja were SERBS by ethnicity! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.32.62 (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Who is a Bosnian ?
Let's say hypothetically that Bosnian Christians, namely Catholics and Orthodox, deny the fact that they are Croats and Serbs, but embrace the term Bosnian. They take the famous King Tvrtko as a medieval ruler of their state Bosnia, aswell as other nobilities of that time, and take some battles where they fought against the others, most notably the ones against the Ottomans that rulled the kingdom and oppressed their christianity for "500" years (eventough I calculated, it was more like 350 - 300 years), as their national myths.

The Question is:
Wouldn't the, predominantly sunni muslim, Bosniak people of ottoman tradition, be seen as some sort of (I dare ask) intruders in Bosnia? Because they are neither christian, like medieval or they fellow Bosnians, nor have they cherished any of such culture or tradition, namely they are the historical foes of Bosnians that ruled over Bosnia in the name of a foreign Ottoman ruler (as aghas, beys, pashas, viziers), oppressing Bosnians, converting them to islam, and denying any connection to their ethnic Bosnian ancestors.

Should those muslim Bosniaks, have to deny their ottoman tradition, culture and religion, and embrace the medieval christian one, namely the Bosnian one, to be accepted as "real" Bosnians? Change their muslim names and surnames, like Vahid, Safvet, Husein, Džemal, Mustafa (quoting some names from the list in the article) to Bosnian names of slavic origin? Deny everything ottoman, foreign and "bad" (bad because the Ottomans eradicated the Bosnian Kingdom, their slavic culture and christian tradition, installing their own foreign turkish one, hence the Bosnian Kingdom fought against the Ottomans) and embrace everything slavic.

I am well aware that the stances stated are somewhat radical, but I believe legitimate to ask.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.58.189 (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I do think it is a legitimate question, and I do think that one's own country should always be more important no matter what. Showing the Turkish flag in public as one's own, for instance, makes no sense.

Europe is Christian, but Christianity it is not the determining factor for being “European”. It makes no sense to “embrace the medieval Christian” faith as some sort of solution. We really do not need more "conversions", people tend to be blind about the shortcomings of their own religion, as they care for their own and blame the other. The religions prey on the mind of children, the psychologists call it the socialization process; the grown men repeat later these statements without consideration,… This is true of all three Abrahamic faiths. Exclusivity in religious terms is dangerous, since the Abrahamic religions, even sects belonging to the same religion, do not mix well. We have embraced the Christianity (Catholic and Orthodox) and Islam in the early 90s, and look at how it affected the people. We have SEGREGATION in the society now. This is the same in the 20th and 21st century as it was for example in the 10th or 16th century. We should be wary of these dynamics; the Middle East is a cautioning example of what we should never allow in our backyard. We in Bosnia need the separation of church and state more than any other country in Europe. Under Tito this was the case, and I think it was one of the important factors for the stability. For Bosniaks in particular, I think, the most honest thing would be to acknowledge that we have been influenced by the Ottomans through conquest AND faith and not try to insist on these “cultural” bridges, which honestly nowadays do not make that much sense... That the Ottomans have been gone for 150 years is also true in this context.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.106.15 (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There is something you don't understand. Most of the people who were part of the Bosnian church converted to muslims. They are not intruders, they just changed their religion. And in the last 50 years they finally made it to be dominated group in Bosnia and Herzegovina. One research shows that most people from BiH doesn't have any connections to Turkey. The blood type is different. About 65% of Bosnia and more then 75% of Herzegovina has haplogroup which originated some 2500 years ago, which means way before Otomans came here and which means that people from BiH mixed very little with other people. That is the biggest percentage of an Haplogroup in a region in Europe. The other people with this same haplogroup in big percentage is the southern part of Dalmatia, especially on some islands, which were on the other hand, before otomans, many times in the kingdom of Bosnia. And the only reason why we like Turkey is because we have some kind of respect to them. I'm someone who dislikes the public showing of their flag from the side of our people, but when I need which other nation do I support the most, it would be for sure Turkey. AnelZukic (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * AnelZukic, this looks like a topic for some forum, not for an encyclopedia. Ignore it until there is some substantiated discussion about improving the article, after all that is why talk pages exist - not about discussing every editors opinion on this topic. I am not sure about this, but I think this is called "don`t feed the trolls" :). Greetings. Adrian (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, the term haplogroup refers to the "cluster" to which a set of genetic mutations is included. What you are referring to is the I Y-haplogroup (based on mutations on the Y chromosome which is passed from father to son). It has nothing to do with a "blood type". Also, little is known about the Bosnian Church, claims that they were "Bogumils" are dubious, because AFAIK these were in Bulgaria. What the true nature of their "heresy" was is not known. The claim that most of them converted to Islam cannot be substantiated. However, that the Bosniaks descend from them is something that can be concluded based, among other things, on the genetic evidence. 75% of the I2a marker makes Croats in Herzegovina an extreme outlier in Europe, and an additional study should be done IMHO. The same study in which this claim has been made (Marjanovic ) indicates that the highest occurrence of J is in the Bosniak sample, and the highest occurrence of E is in the Serbian sample (... that way you can insult each other better...). Overall, about 2/3rds of people in Bosnia have distinctly European Y haplogropus. Specifically for Bosniaks the breakdown is as follows: I 48.2, R1a1 15.3, R1b 3.5, F (other branches) 8.2, J 11.9, E3b 12.9. This number is higher in Croatia and lower in Serbia....And, finally, I personally do not care about Turkey that much...

Answer to the question and opinion whether Tvrtko belongs in the article picture
To answer the original question we first need to consider: "What is an ethnic group?"

Wikipedias answer is:

"An ethnic group is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and/or an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy."

Now lets see if the Bosniaks of say 1400 were an ethnic group:

Identified with each other? Yes.

Common heritage? Yes.

Common language? Yes.

(Optional) Shared religion? Yes.

Ideology that stresses common ancestry? Yes.

The answer is obvious. An empathic yes.

What about the Bosniaks of 2010?

Common herigate? Yes.

Common language? Yes.

Shared religion? Yes.

Ideology that stresses common ancestry? Yes.

Again, they are.

Now the core of your question is whether the latter group has the right to identify with the former without undoing all the change that has happened to them in the intervening 600 years.

Quite simply: Yes. Wikipedia again on ethnogenesis: "Ethnic definitions are subject to change over time, both within and outside groups."

The question makes about as much sense as asking whether Germans have the right to consider themselves Germanic unless they start donning war paint and pelts and go fight the Italians(Romans) or reclaim their belief in Wotan or leave behind such Semitic names as Christian and Thomas.

It denies the fact that ethnicity is a social construct that is subject to change, adaptation and reconstitution. An ethnic group begins when people start seeing themselves as separate in identity from others and ends when there are no more people left who share that sense of identity. As long as there are people who share ancestry and a sense of identity with the Bosniaks of a thousand years ago the Bosniak identity survives. Also the question when exactly and how the Bosniak identity started prior to the first written record from 29. august of 1189 is interesting- but irrelevant to the fact that it exist from at least since then until today. Quite honestly, your original hypothesis is atavistic as it denies the fluidity of history, culture and identity and decries any change as a betrayal of the past.

I think that also explains why Tvrtko and other people who "merely" called themselves Bosniaks belong in an ethnic sense to the Bosniaks of today (following Wikipedia guidelines on what constitutes an ethnic identity.)

Now let's look at the objection that putting them on this article is "unfair" because they also belong to Bosnian Croats and Serbs:

It is clear that Tvrtko was a Bosnian, so he belongs on that page. It is clear that Bosnian Croats and Serbs are Bosnian, at least in a geographic sense. Their connection with Tvrtko is therefore explained and documented in that page. This doesn't change the fact that Tvrtko also belongs on this page since he is one of the fundaments and a significant part of the Bosniak identity.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.169.52 (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Bosnians are people living in Bosnia, that term is defined geographically and includes Bosniaks (previously "Bosnian Muslims"), Bosnian Serbs, and Bosnian Croats. Bosniaks are Bosnians, but are no more or less Bosnians than Bosnian Serbs or Croats.

As I said above, in Tvrtko's time all Bosnians were Christian South Slavs. The Bosniak nationality was formed in the past century by and for Bosnian Muslims, and was only recently renamed from "Muslim by nationality". It is culturally distinguished by its Muslim legacy. While those of the Christian Slav Bosnians that would adopt Islam in future centuries were certainly there in great number, it would be impossible to distinguish them in any way from those that will not. Distinctions between Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs are completely inapplicable to the historical context of King Tvrtko, and to apply any of the three to Tvrtko is an error, and one that will be offensive to the other two.

King Tvrtko is Bosnian. Bosniaks are Bosnian. But King Tvrtko is not a Bosniak (or a Croat or a Serb). Geographically we can call him a "Bosnian", but such terms as "Bosniak" or "Croat" or "Serb" are inapplicable in his context. That is often the case with attempts to project 19th (or in this case 20th) century national concepts on the Middle Ages. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

King Tvrtko was a Bosnian (Christ) not a Bosniak (Muslim)
In the time of King Tvrtko and the Kotromanic dynasty, there were no Bosniaks. Anything similar to that ethnos, Slavic Muslims of Ottoman culture, were extremly rare on the Balkans of that time and for Tvrtko being a christian king those people were enemies of the Bosnian Kingdom, against which he fought. The Ottomans eradicated the Bosnian medieval nation.

The contemporary terminus Bosniaks is an austrian-designed terminus in the 19th century for ottoman muslims that speak serbo-croatian, which have nothing in common with the tradition of medieval Bosnian state, on the contrary they are the sole opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.23.94.188 (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That might even be true. At the same time Bosniaks are the group in Bosnia which identifies with the Bosnian state the most. Again, I agree with you with respect to the religion, but "Slavic Muslim" is not equal "Bosniak". It is the old Bosniak = Bosnian Muslim vs. Bosniak = Bosnian argument, which I will not repeat here,... but it seems to me that the Serbian and Croatian nationalists would rather tolerate Bosnian Muslims than Bosnian statehood/nation,... think about it.

However, can we resolve the map dispute? I have proposed a modified map, can we please pick one of the two? Or can somebody upload a different map that everybody agrees on?

"Bošnjak" is a modern derivative of the medieval word "Bošnjanin". You don't have to be Muslim to be Bosniak (same for Catholics and Croats, orthodoxy and Serbs). Tvrtko I was a self identified "Bošnjanin" (Modern-day Bošnjak). His nationality was Bosnian. He wasn't a Serb, nor Croat. So, since most Bosniaks are descendants of the Bošnjanin, he is regarded as a "Bošnjak" in modern times. Like how the French, before the notion of French people, were called Franks, and are now called French. the word "French" is derived from the word "Frank"(Peoples). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gradanin (talk • contribs) 09:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that his point was rather that Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats have every right to Tvrtko as well, and that Tvrtko in connection with for instance Ceric (who happens to love Turkey and the Ottoman empire so much), is nothing short of a contradiction for the Bosniaks, because the medieval Bosnian kingdom was destroyed by the Ottomans. And I concede him that point, simply because he is right. Also, let me point out that their pictures are both in the article, side by side.

There is no contradiction, no nation remains unchanging throughout 1000 years, appreciating different eras of ones heritage is the modus operandi for pretty much every nation. Just because Bosniaks today are mostly Muslim doesn't mean that they don't share their heritage with the Bosniak Christians of yore. That would be like saying that Norwegians have to disown their heritage because they no longer believe in Loki or Thor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.237.135 (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, every nation as old as the Bosniaks has gone through numerous changes, saying that change (including Religious change) automatically severs ones connection with his ancestors would mean that the almost every nation is an historical orphan.
 * The term that we should use is Bosnian. The Bosniak nationality was formed by and for Bosnian Muslims, and was only recently renamed from "Muslim by nationality". It is true that certain Bosniak intellectuals have been attempting to represent only Bosnian Muslims, i.e. Bosniaks, as the only historic Bosnians. This is very biased, however. In Tvrtko's time all Bosnians were Christian South Slavs. While those of these Christian Slav Bosnians that would adopt Islam in future centuries were certainly there among them in great number, it would be impossible to distinguish them in any way from those that will not. In other words, distinctions between Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs are completely inapplicable to this historical context, and to apply any of the three to Tvrtko is an error, and one that will be offensive to the other two. Tvrtko was a Bosnian king. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Let us simply keep Tvrtko's picture saying that he was a ruler of Bosnia. Basically, to be very precise: IMAGE Tvrtko I Kotromanic,

A ruler of medieval Bosnia. -- This should, quite frankly, also be acceptable to Serbs and Croats, as it stands next to the section on the (common) history.

Also, it is not given, by any means, that some figures who have Islamic names would have opted for the Bosniak nationality today, or that they descendants did not convert back to Christianity. The article on Omar Pasha Latas proudly lists him as a Serb, and there are historical sources which confirm that he indeed felt that way. This might be a little provocative to ask, but I think it is also legitimate: Who did he support and who did he oppress? Again, I do not want to offend anybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.200.209 (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This talk is a litle old, but still I hope you will list Tvrtko I as a Bosniak, because he was. If you didn't know, he converted to Catholicism in 1347 but what was he before that? He was a kristjan a.k.a. "bogumil". The kristjans where, even thought christians, neither Orthodox nor Catholich, but Heretic. After the fall of the Bosnian kingdom these converted to Islam, therefore they must have been Bosniaks, and not Serbs or Crotas, including Tvrtko I. I hope you will hear me and change this 'cause I don't really know how to edit anything except correcting grammar mistakes.80.80.40.208 (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Need for ethnic map from1991
This article should have at least one ethnic map from pre-war period 1990-'91. Census of '91 or maps made after first democratic elections should do. This article have only one ethnic map, that from post-war period, which leave reader with incomplete ethnic picture. Caption below the map, with some sort of explanation isn't enough !

There are lot of maps of this sort on other articles on Bosnia, please include one, or one could even draw a new one - simple shading of areas where Bosniaks constituted majority before they were (ethically) cleansed could do the job.--Santasa99 (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Added. -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 05:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Conversion to islam under Ottoman rule
The article states. "Throughout the entire Balkans, people converted in small numbers to Islam in order to escape the burden of taxation and resulting social discrimination. However, in Bosnia, large-scale conversions to Islam were prevalent. " Well yes, that's obvious, but why did people convert in such large numbers here, and not in most other Balkan areas? Steinbach (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh well. It would be nice if I got a reply. Steinbach (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't get a reply 'till now. Before the Ottoman conquest, Bosniaks were "Krstjans" - christians who adhered the Bosnian church. Since it was considered heretical by the pope, Bosnia was the only country where it was present as a religious community. After the fall of the Bosnian kingdom, there were two strong, organized religious communities in Bosnia: The Catholic church, headed by the Pope, and the Islamic community, headed by the so-called sheihul-islam (the Bosnian church and the Orthodox church had been decisevly weakened by the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans). The Bosniaks were dissapointed by the pope because he didn't protect Bosnia, and started hating him and the catholic church. Because of that they quickly converted to Islam, the only remaining religion with a strong influence. Sorry for grammar mistakes.80.80.40.208 (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, any source for this claims? --Plantago (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Male bias
The entry shows strong male bias - only male Bosniaks are represented with photographs, and only male first names are mentioned in the section on names (with only a minor reference to female first names). Please amend to this! I suggest putting the photo of the film maker Jasmila Žbanić. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.37.131 (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Who changed Intro and why?
Some time ago there was a different statement in this article Intro, statement which stated that Bosniaks are ...people-ethnicity-nationality ...regardless to religion ...most of which belong to Islam..., etc, etc... myabe not in these exact words but in this exact sense - so it stated that indeed NOT all Bosniaks are exclusively Muslims/muslims.

Today, after some time, I don't how much time nor I am able to find since when, this Intro sound completely different - "Bosniaks are typically characterized by their ..., traditional adherence to Islam ... are also referred to as Bosnian Muslims... Bosniak has replaced Muslim as an official ethnic term in part to avoid confusion with the religious term Muslim – an adherent of Islam." Well, I believe this is not exactly true, nor it can be proven on the basis of some valid evidence ! I don't know how many others, but certainly I know that three quarter of my family are Bosniak Catholics. I am BOSNIAK, although atheist, BUT of Catholic-Christian cultural-religious provenance ! So this better be changed or we are looking at utter discrimination, on the basis of someone opinion, maybe even majority opinion but opinion never the less !

But something is quite interesting - those who edit this article while considering themselves as Bosniaks will, in most of the cases, take my side in this and say: "yes, there still exist many Orthodx-Bosniaks, Catholic-Bosniaks, atheist-Bosniaks as well as Muslim-Bosniaks", while those of you who are particularly against the fact that Bosniaks are not exclusevly Muslims/muslims, will not, and you will fight my exposition to the death - funny, isn't it !

--Santasa99 (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Santasa, I am sorry that you had to wait for this reply to be made. You are of course right, while Bosniaks are typically characterized by their Muslim tradition this does not mean exclusively. Although the Bosniak nation today is predominantly supported by Bosnians of Muslim faith, and much less so by Bosnians of Christian faith who predominantly identify as Bosnian Croats or Serbs, it does not mean that Muslim heritage is a prerequisite for Bosniak ethnicity. Albeit very few, some Catholics and Orthodox Christians in Bosnia may today identify as belonging to a Bosniak nation consisting of three religions. In fact, during the tumultuous establishing of nation states in the Balkans in the 19th century, a unitary Bosniak nation was not only advocated by Muslim intelligentsia of the time but also by a number of Bosnian Catholic Franciscans, most notably Ivo Franjo Jukic and his even more vocal pupil Antun Knezevic. So while the contemporary Bosniak nation predominantly thrives on Muslim Bosnians this is more a twist of fate than anything else, and Islam is a common but not defining feature. I will make sure to elaborate this in the article in the near future. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Earliest use of "Bosniak" in English.
I'd like to discuss a statement in the article which reads, According to the Bosniac entry in the Oxford English Dictionary, the first known use of Bosniak in English was in "1836 Penny Cyclopaedia V. 231/1...." It would seem that a rather large number of counterexamples exist against the claim that this was its "first known use" in the English language. Searching Google Books public domain works for "Bosniak" and the variant spelling "Bosniac", and sorting the search results by date, reveals a variety of English texts which made use of the word prior to 1836, including one dating as far back as 1756. (However, Googe's repository of 18th century texts is rather incomplete, so the 1756 example may not even be the very first time the word appeared in an English language publication.) Here are links to these Google searches: Bosniac, Bosniak.

Perhaps the word's appearance in the Penny Cyclopaedia marks the first time it is given an entry in a standard English reference work? In this sense, it could be viewed in the context of other neologisms, or "new words", which are used informally for some time, but become "formally* accepted as a part of the language when a standard dictionary or other reference work recognizes their existence. That may be what the Oxford English Dictionary is referring to; as the part about it being the "first known use of Bosniak in English" isn't part of the quotation from the Oxford Dictionary, it may be an editorial interpretation which the work itself doesn't make.  I don't have access to the work so I cannot verify this hypothesis.  Nevertheless, connecting the "first known use of Bosniak in English" to its 1836 appearance in the Penny Cyclopedia definitely appears to be a mistaken assertion and some sort of rewording appears to be needed. --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Mike, I'll get right on it. In general, the South Slavic ethnonyms entered the English dictionary quite late, the Serb and Croat ones did so about the same time as the Bosniak/Bosnian one (I have access to the OED). I will make revisions as appropriate. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Bogomils?
I find it surprising that no mention is made of the Bogomils within this article. Is that a taboo subject? Didn't they play a role in Bosnian history?

Eravian (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Eravian, the article is a work in progress and by no means is it a "taboo subject". As for now, there is a brief mention of the Bosnian church in the article. Please feel free to run by the talk page any sourced material you would like to expand the subject with. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

General opinions by user:152.15.106.15
This is terrible. Who are these people listed as "famous Bosniaks"? Some people apparently do not want Selimovic listed, but people like "Muhamed Hevaji Uskufi Bosnevi" are in order? They are OK?! I assume that their photo was not copyrighted, like Selimovic's!? This is ridiculous, and worse yet it gives a skewed picture of history. These are only the most shocking ones, the remaining choices are also very questionable. And what is the reason for what I can only describe as "the Islamic feel" to the whole page? Even the Bosniak forces in the Austrian army seem to have spent most of their time in the mosque. There is no map of Bosnia today, but there is one of the Turkish lands in Europe at the height of the Ottoman expansion.

Either these changes were done with malicious intent, or there are some really stupid people out there. In my opinion (as a Bosniak), this page has been vandalized in the recent couple of months. The changes should be rolled back by the admins. There have to be checks on what people can do with a page like this. For English speakers: The name Nasuh el-Bosnavî strikes me as NOT Bosniak and he is NOT famous in Bosnia (on the contrary nobody has ever heard of him). For instance Mehmedalija "Mak" Dizdar, could have also been listed but is not. There are of course other examples.
 * I can't really see any basis whatsoever to your ranting, instead please be civil rather than calling other editors "stupid". The criticized individuals included are historical Bosniak figures, while the ones you are referring to are only from recent times; hence they are not mutually exclusive as you appear to believe. Moreover, seeing that Selimovic self-declared as Serb I would say his persona is controversial. There is no excessive "Islamic feel" to the article, however, it would be ludicrous claiming that Islam hasn't played a crucial role in affirming the Bosniak identity, just as Catholicism and Orthodoxy did for the Croats and Serbs; as such there isn't more emphasis on religion here than in the articles of the other two. Your unfamiliarity with the names you deem as "non-Bosniak" testifies to your lack of historical understanding which is the fact that Bosniak noblemen (as all Muslims in the empire) often rose to prominence under Ottoman titles and names. I suggest you acquaint yourself with your own history (since you claim to be "Bosniak"). Street in Visoko named after Matrakcija Nasuh: . Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's not say "stupid" let's just say biased. If all that you have just said is true, how do you explain the map of Ottoman empire, not Bosnia (in 1683)? The map should properly be labeled "Turkish Lands in Europe ca. 1680." Include a link to a different page if you have to. It is as relevant as the map of Austria-Hungary from 1900, only with the connotation of, well, Turkey, and begging the question of why for this period and this period only the map of a foreign(!), occupying power is shown, and not that of Bosnia. If you still don't think that this is biased - where is the map of former Yugoslavia? Moreover, the list of important people does not include Selimovic, one of the best novelists in former Yugoslavia, but it includes Alija Izetbegović,Dino Merlin, Elez Dervišević, etc, not to mention el-Bosnavî of whom I have quite frankly not heard before... I think that this clearly shows the bias. Of course, you can ignore this or just say "I don't understand what your problem is...". I guess that I should just be grateful that the list of famous Bosniaks does not include Alija Izetbegović as King-Ali the 1st, and Bakir Izetbegović as King-Ali the 2nd, or maybe I should invest some insane amount of time trying to find a way to correct this.


 * Your objections emanate from a number of serious basic misconceptions which are frankly tiresome for me to explain and I shall not do you the favor again. The map in question is indeed showing Bosnia as administered by the Ottomans, in the form of an Eyalet which was the highest status any administrative region could enjoy within the empire. As such Bosnia was the only country conquered by the empire which had its full territorial identity preserved (countries like Albania and Serbia were for example subjected to the wider general Rumelia Eyalet). Needless to say the Bosnia Eyalet is a great source of pride for the Bosniaks and symbolizes a form of Bosnian distinction of self-government during the Ottoman period, covering an even larger areal than the modern state of Bosnia-Herzegovina does today. That is what the map is showing, plainly and simply, alongside a map of the preceding Kingdom of Bosnia upon which the Eyalet of Bosnia was based. However, Ottoman Bosnia wasn't independent and so to show some form of Bosnian state separately from the "Turkish lands" would be severely misleading. I guess we could also theoretically include maps of Bosnia within the Astro-Hungarian empire and Yugoslavia, however these experiences did not last for near as long and are of significantly lesser importance (and esteem) to the Bosniaks who came to form a separate thriving community during the Ottoman Period and would thereafter rather find themselves fighting for recognition and survival (WWII and 90s war). Most Bosniaks would in hindsight relate to the greater part of the Astro-Hungarian and Yugoslav experience as fundamentally hostile to Bosniak interests, possibly together with a certain degree of contradictory nostalgia. As I already replied to you regarding the infobox pictures, Selimovic is a highly contested individual which inarguably self-declared as "Serb", despite having been born into a Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) family. Few editors would see it fit to add Selimovic to the infobox for this reason, the vastness of the archived disputes at the talk page of his article being obvious to that fact. You need to understand that every version of a controversial article on Wikipedia is the result of a hard-earned consensus among editors based on many hours of argumentation. Uncompromisingly pushing ones own view seldom sees any success. Although, on the other hand, Mak Dizdar would certainly be a suitable addition but with no free images having been uploaded so far (and I can't find any, and I doubt you will either). I am certainly too preoccupied to enlighten you on rather trivial subjects and will have to declare the discussion terminated here, unless you bring up anything of actual relevance. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Finally, I just want to inform you that I have expanded the figure text of the concerned map as to make the point clear. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

"...to show some form of Bosnian state separately from the "Turkish lands" would be severely misleading..." - care to elaborate, I naively thought the article was about Bosnia, not Turkey? Also w.r.t. "Most Bosniaks would in hindsight relate to the greater part of the Astro-Hungarian and Yugoslav experience as fundamentally hostile to Bosniak interests..." - probably true for the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but not for the Austria-Hungary and most certainly not for the 1945 - 1990 Yugoslavia. The Ottoman empire, on the other hand, *was* fundamentally hostile to all Balkan peoples *including* the Bosniaks, and here you should take your own advice and read your own actual, recent history about the Gradaščević's uprising (unlike the el-Bosnavî stuff, it is, well should we say, rooted in fact) and how the Ottomans really viewed the "Bosnian self-government". I.M.O. Selimovic should be claimed by Bosniaks, despite how he declared himself later in life. Dizdar and some others would be a better choice. But, never mind what I am saying, just consider that whoever googles Bosniaks will get this page as the first match. Do you really want this nonsense to be the very first thing they read?


 * It strikes me you would prefer to cover up the entire Ottoman period, and the far-reaching implications it had on Bosniak ethnogenesis, and basically present Bosniak history and development with a large gap; not at all uncommon amongst Bosniaks of a strong communist tradition, but hardly representative of the group. I have already addressed your question, Bosnia wasn't just some piece of conquered European soil: Bosniaks, along with the Albanians, were the main pillars of Ottoman policy in the Balkans. Your problem is that you cannot understand that there was no other Bosnia but Ottoman Bosnia in this period, your inherent dislike for the "Turks" (should in all accuracy be "Ottomans") prevails over reason. The rebellion surrounding Gradascevic, and the reforms that were rejected, would occur in the very last decades of Ottoman rule in Bosnia, and still the Bosniaks would fiercely resist Astro-Hungarian occupation thereafter: what in your right mind makes you think a dominating Muslim population would open-heartedly subject themselves to a Christian power, or vice versa? The claim that the Ottoman empire was equally hostile to all peoples in Balkan is erroneous, Muslims were clearly the dominating power in the empire and Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) weren't simply conquered and exploited but would partake in many high-powered aspects of Ottoman rule and culture, in one sense they were Ottomans (not Turks) themselves and enjoyed a special status of autonomy as compared with other regions, even Muslim ones. Just a brief question, do you at all realize that "Bosnavi" is the Arabic rendering of "Bosniak"? Obviously the Bosniak identity, whatever its nature, wasn't suppressed during Ottoman times, which is a lot more than can be said for the SFR Yugoslavia where Bosniaks barely managed to obtain recognition as "Muslims" (absurd as it is). The existence of a separate "Bosnian language" was even more unimaginable, despite that Muhamed Uskufija (the Ottoman Bosniak writer you so sorely denigrate, alongside Matrakcija) referred to his language as "Bosnian" already in the 16th century. Bosnian Muslims were clearly a marginalized group within SFR Yugoslavia, though at times not realized by the ordinary Bosniak given the communist structure of the state where intellectual Bosniaks were imprisoned in their struggle for recognition and emancipation: Yugoslavia was after all not a democracy. The Bosniaks' vulnerable position within Yugoslavia, and in some sense internationally, would nevertheless dramatically acquaint itself with the common Bosniak in 1992-1995. Apart from a few nostalgic Bosniaks of strong communist tradition, a negative understanding of Yugoslavia has definitely been cemented in hindsight, at least politically: and your very own beloved author Mak Dizdar would himself write of the "castration of the Bosnian language" within Yugoslavia (though you might think Bosniaks have always spoken in terms of "Zdravo" and "Tata"). Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You called me a communist?! If you check my IP addresses, you will see that I am in the US right now. I guess I must have somehow picked it up, since the people here are well know for their Bolshevism... BUT, I will take communists over the likes of you anytime, anywhere. Also, where did I say that you should not cover the Turkish rule in Bosnia? I never did, since it had such a large influence on the Bosniaks it would indeed make little sense. Just plz realize that it is OVER. If you dislike it, then go to Turkey and live there, and stop ruining anything related to Bosnia. You argument is just providing the Serbian and Croat nationalist with a raison d'etre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.174.251 (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Matrakčija Nasuh el-Bosnavî
On his Wikipedia article, it states that this man is of Serbian origin. Why include him in the infobox? Also, seeing that the infobox is somewhat male-oriented, perhaps Lepa Brena or another female Bosniak should be added instead of individuals whose ethnic-background is historically skewed, as is the case with Matrakčija Nasuh el-Bosnavî. 23 editor (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article on Matrakčija had been vandalized by an IP-user from Serbia  apparently moments before you visited it: he wasn't Serbian and his background isn't "historically skewed". The infobox is not "male-oriented" to any greater extent than that for Serbs (2 females) or Croats (1 female) (no females whatsoever for Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs), while there is currently two females in the Bosniaks infobox. I will assume good faith on your behalf, especially with regard to your negligence and rash conclusion on Matrakčija. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, seeing two females are already present in the infobox and with "Lepa Brena" being a controversial person among Bosniaks due to her ties to Belgrade (not least during the Bosnian War) I would not consider such an addition necessary nor appropriate. The infobox on Bosnian Croats and Serbs is in greater need of any attention. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox individuals
Why don't you include Tvrtko I Kotromanić and the queen of Hungary and Poland Elizabeth of Bosnia (polish: Elżbieta Bośniaczka), daughter to Stephen II, Ban of Bosnia in the infobox? Bosniaks did exist before the arrival of the Ottomans, so why don't you include our pre-islamic medieval kings and nobels in the infobox? Instead of Matrakčija Nasuh el-Bosnavî and Elez Dervišević, you should put in Tvrtko I Kotromanić (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tvrtko_I_of_Bosnia) and Elizabeth of Bosnia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_of_Bosnia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.253.53 (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To make a very long story short, there is a distinction between 'Bosnian' and 'Bosniak'. The individuals you refer to are part of medieval Bosnia which predates any "modern" ethnic identities known as "Bosniak", "Bosnian Serb" or "Bosnian Croat", as these began to form only during the Ottoman period and were largely finalized in the late 19th century based on religious lines.Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

How about getting rid of Izetbegovic? I don't see Tudjman on the "Croats" Wikipedia page. They put up Josip Broz Tito, clearly the more significant statesman of the two. They could have put up both, but they chose not to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.174.251 (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone should upload a picture of Mehmed-beg Kapetanovic Ljubusak, who is, with Ivan Franjo Jukic and S. b. Basagic the greatest protagonists of the Bosniak identity of all time. Also Tvrtko I Kotromanic must be upload into the infobox. Tvrtko was "Bosnjanin" which was the only etnonym in the medieval Bosnia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.68.237.78 (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I like & agree with two unsigned inputs from above ! However, my main concern is that we have only two women in Infobox image. That's a shame since there are so many great gals in Bosnia history.--Santasa99 (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, Izetbegovic is a given choice definite inclusion. In contrast to Milosevic or Tudjman, his role in the Yugoslav wars is not viewed upon with contention (at least not mainstream). Izetbegovic is to some degree the founding father, and certainly the first democratically elected president, of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is no real justification to belittle his relevance for Bosniaks and Bosnia (think of him what you will). As for females, more of them would be desirable but having two isn't all that bad when compared with other ethnic group articles (especially Balkan ones). Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Great inputs by some, but why are el-Bosnavi and Izetbegovic still listed? Also there are *way* too many religious references. This page is bad on so many levels, it is however what the people see first when they google Bosniaks. One more thing, what is "In my opinion, Izetbegovic is a given choice." even supposed to mean? Izetbegovic was a terrible political leader, and his legacy in Bosnia is mostly corruption, not to mention the victims of war. 152.15.174.251 (talk)


 * @ IP 152.15.174.251. Your highly personalized non-encyclopedic sentiments have been refuted previously. I do wonder what the world would look like if it was solely shaped after your emotional whims. The witch-hunt that you are waging against Bosnia's Ottoman period out of spite is beyond all sense. This long-lasting and crucial part of Bosnian history saw the formation of the three modern nations which comprise Bosnia today: Bosniaks, Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats. Referring to any pre-Ottoman Bosnian by any of these labels is anachronistic and not to say painstakingly controversial. Praxis Icosahedron  ϡ ( TALK ) 13:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Paldum
Can we replace the picture of Dino Merlin with Hanka Paldum on this page?--DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that is rational. Dino Merlin is more prominent than Hanka Paldum, but the article needs expanding. A much welcomed addition on the other hand would be Safet Isovic but there aren't any free images out there as far as I can tell. Actually I'm not even sure we have an image of Paldum, the ones in the article are album covers and non-free. Praxis Icosahedron  ϡ ( TALK ) 19:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

We need more women in the infobox! There is 20 pictures of famous Bosniaks in the infobox, but only three of them are women. Sabiha Gökçen, is a women, but she is not even close to be famous among the Bosniaks. I think that no one in Bosnia have ever heard of her. Also I really think that it's enough of sportspeople in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 12:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The absence of women is a common problem across ethnic infoboxes, not least due to the historic marginalization of them. However, this does not mean that we should add insignificant females just to even it up. The main criteria for infobox representation is notability, and not popularity or gender. Sabiha Gökcen might not be very well-known among Bosniaks (i.e. popular) but this doesn't decrease her notable persona. As a matter of fact, due to the relatively recent national emancipation of Bosniaks quite few individuals other than Mesa Selimovic and Mak Dizdar ("communist era Bosniaks") are known to the wider public. Hence, for numerous reasons, the popularity among the general population cannot be used as a determinant of encyclopedic significance. Gökcen also symbolizes the hundreds of thousands of Bosniaks living in Turkey today (c. 2,000,000 according to the government). Few Bosniaks from Bosnia, isolated by Yugoslavia as they were, have had the chance to cherish ethnic relations with Bosniaks in Turkey, but that doesn't mean they don't exist or should be neglected. There are numerous Bosniak organizations in several Turkish cities which keep the Bosniak identity alive. The large Bosniak community in Turkey is also noted by Turkish public broadcaster TRT which broadcasts programs in Bosnian to this day (mind you the vast majority of Bosniaks in Turkey settled there in the 19th and early 20th century). Finally, I'm not certain we should have 20 pictures (seems a bit over the top), 16 would be more in place maybe, and I'm saying this though it was I who cranked it up to 20. Praxis Icosahedron  ϡ ( TALK ) 18:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I just want to underline that I am not rejecting the addition of Paldum if a suitable portrait is found. But if we wish to add females, let it not be at the expense of other females if possible. Moreover, someone really needs to expand the article on Safet Isovic and get us a photo of him. It's a shame to not have him. Praxis Icosahedron  ϡ ( TALK ) 18:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestions about Safet Isović. Also not having a picture of Mak Dizdar is a shame, even if there was i picture of him, but it was deleted. Then I also think that some of profiles of the medieval Bosnian kingdom, such as Elizabeth of Bosnia (or maybe one of her daughters Jadwiga and/or Mary) should be on the list, because of two reasons: medieval Bosnians called them selfs Bošnjani which can not be anything else then synonym to "Bosniak". Also, the ethnonym "BosniAK" are older then the Turkish occupation in the late of 15th century (source: Vjekoslav Klaić, p. 278 - Poviest Bosne, Muhamed Hadžijahić - Od tradicije do identiteta, p. 7 & E. S. Piccolomini (Pope Pius II) - De Europa). The second reason is that Elizabeth Kotromanić was, as the queen of Poland known as "Elżbieta Bośniaczka" (source: Jerzy Besala - Najsłynniejsze miłości królów polskich. Pdf: http://books.google.se/books?id=jVxCFDj_XIIC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=El%C5%BCbieta+Bo%C5%9Bniaczka#v=onepage&q=El%C5%BCbieta%20Bo%C5%9Bniaczka&f=false), which can not be anything else then "Bošnjačka" which is the femininum of the ethnonym "BosniAK" in the most of Slavic languages. There is now 16 pictures in the infobox. You can just change them if you want. But I think that 20 is too much. Also the picture of Danis Tanović is in side shot, can we change him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 19:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well whatever the case and as much as fun as it is having nice infoboxes, let us not forget that the real value of an article lies in the text material it offers. I do understand the point you're making, the Bosniak identity is by all means in direct succession of the medieval Bosnian identity because it doesn't assert anything inherently alien to Bosnia, and there is no technical reason to not consider medieval Bosnians as equivalent to Bosniaks (notwithstanding religious affiliations). However, since Bosnia is politicized in every possible sense and submerged in a dense mist of controversy, the Bosniak identity, and ultimately an ethnic Bosnian identity, has been rejected by Bosnia's native Christian communities ever since the second half of the 19th century in favor of Serb and Croat identities. As result, the term Bosniak has come to exclusively imply the Bosnian Muslim community who are supportive of such an ethnic Bosnian identity. Thus due to ethnopolitical connotations more than anything else, including medieval Bosnians as part of the Bosniak infobox would suggest that Bosniaks are the sole inheritors of medieval Bosnia (undermining Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs as equally native Bosnians). The main focal point of contention between the groups is naturally whether medieval Bosnia was ethnically Bosniak/n, ethnically Serbian, or ethnically Croat: most scholars settle this issue by choosing neither label, simply referring to medieval Bosnia as "Bosnian" in a non-ethnic sense and in the sense of it predating the modern-day understanding of ethnicity in Bosnia (which is pretty close to the truth when you think of it). Bosniaks blame Bosnian Catholics and Orthodox Christian for allowing upon themselves identities alien to Bosnia, while Bosnian Serbs and Croats blame Bosnian Muslims for not accepting their "evidence" that Bosnia has "really" always just been Serb or Croat, and that the Bosnian identity is forever banished to being merely regional. So while it wouldn't be technically wrong to include medieval Bosnians as part of the Bosniak infobox, it would certainly run the risk of portraying the Bosnian Serbs and Croats as alien to Bosnia. The most proper thing to do in my opinion is to avoid any inflammatory claims in medieval Bosnia, and instead aim on writing up a highly qualified article which goes into depth on the complex history of Bosnia, and not least the nationalistic processes taking place in the 19th century which split Bosnians into three ethnicities. You seem to have good sources. Praxis Icosahedron  ϡ ( TALK ) 20:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The picture of Tanovic is certainly not optimal, but I am honestly quite reluctant to removing him on account of his unmatched notability among contemporary Bosniaks. An Academy Award is no small thing. Emir Kusturica which is venerated among Serbs has for instance never been awarded one. Praxis Icosahedron  ϡ ( TALK ) 21:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody get a picture of Silvana Armenulić? She is one of the most famous and successful singers from Yugoslavia... and she also happens to have been my grandpa's sister :) The only picture of her on her wiki is a painting that some user made--DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Counter-suggestion to Paldum
I have a counter-suggestion. There is a disproportionate amount of Bosniaks in Serbia and Montenegro that I personally feel are under-represented in the article. Bosniaks are not and should not be labeled as an ethnic group that originates from Bosnia. Historically, most Bosniaks in Montenegro have no ancestry from Bosnia whatsoever. Serbian Bosniaks are here-and-there (meaning part of them have some sort of Bosnian ancestry, though certainly not all). Montenegrin Bosniaks hail largely from historically Serbian populations from the Highland clans (inc. Kuči, Bratonožići and Bjelopavlići), or even historically Albanian populations, esp. Kelmendi and Shkreli. It would seem fair to include at least one Bosniak from Serbia and one from Montenegro. --Prevalis (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Montenegro: Šerbo Rastoder (most notable; ancestry originally from Kuči), Ćamil Sijarić (important figure in Bosniak literature; of Serb ancestry), Avdo Međedović (Bosniak guslar, don't see many of those; origins hail from Rovci), Ekrem Jevrić (we all know why...), Emir Spahić (yes, one-half is Bosnian but paternally, his ancestry hails from Bihor), Fahrudin Radončić (before arguments are made about him being Bosnian, he may self-identify as such now, however, he was born in Podgorica and his family is originally from Gusinje whose ancestors hailed from Kuči)
 * Trying to make a point that not all Bosniaks are from Bosnia or have Bosnian ancestry here.
 * Serbia: Mirsad Türkcan, Emina Jahović (notable), Sulejman Ugljanin, Rasim Ljajić (notable, surname clearly denotes an Albanian origin), Dženan Lončarević, etc.
 * Infoboxes are not a matter of just rambling up candidate names, there also has to be available free images (which is quite often not the case). Why else do you think Safet Isovic or Mak Dizdar is absent? Praxis Icosahedron  ϡ ( TALK ) 02:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The region divided between Serbia and Montenegro which Bosniaks inhabit is historically known as Sandžak. This administrative unit was closely tied to Bosnia for centuries in the form of an eyalet. The region's partition between Serbia and Montenegro is recent and dates back to the Balkan wars of the early 20th century. To assign Sandžak Bosniaks a Serb origin simply because the region was ruled by Serb monarchs in the Middle Ages lacks relevance and borders to nationalist discourse. A Bosniak from Sandžak does not have to be able to trace his geographic origins to Bosnia in order to be regarded an original member of that nation. In that case, millions of Serbs hailing from outside of the original Serb state of Rascia are not true Serbs, or the Swedes living in Scania are actually Danes on account of the region originally belonging to Danish kings. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 03:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

wiki
Most of this wiki is about the history of Bosnia... not the Bosniak ethnic group... it should be more specific --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Bosniaks in both Serbia and Montenegro have a rich history that has not been exploited as much as should. This history could potentially be incorporated into the article. However, the issue that would ultimately arise is how to fit it all and make the article flow... --Prevalis (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We need to look through the whole article and rewrite --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @Demir, some of it could very likely be narrowed down, but highlighting the complex history of Bosnia is instrumental to advancing the understanding of the equally complex ethnogenesis of Bosniaks. The section discussing the Bosnian Church, as for example, is more than a flat chronicle of events; it describes (or begins to describe) the sociocultural, religious and political climate which predisposed Bosnians to Islam later on. Most ethnic groups, and certainly the Bosniaks, are obviously inseparable from the history of their ancestral habitat.  Praxis Icosahedron  ϡ ( TALK ) 01:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @Prevalis, more on the Sandžak Bosniaks is desirable, calling them "converted Serbs and Albanians" is not however. By the same token we could spin off on how Bosnian Serbs are largely Serbianized Vlachs and Orthodox Bosniaks. Praxis Icosahedron  ϡ ( TALK ) 01:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @Demir, I haven't had the time to review the latest edits by our new contributor, user:Norrskensstämmor, but apparently much of it is quite unspecific and has to be trimmed. Praxis Icosahedron  ϡ ( TALK ) 02:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of it turned out to be copy-past from Bosnian history articles and has been removed now. Please refrain from this editing technique in the future, Norrskensstämmor. The content here must be unique for this article and not least relevant. I think we're good on the pre-Ottoman history piece as for now but a better background needs to be written up for the Ottoman era elaborating on the process of Islamization and existing theories on the reason for large-scale conversions (this has been somewhat already set up for in previous sections). Praxis Icosahedron  ϡ ( TALK ) 20:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Thank's, it looks better now. — Preceding comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 20:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Illyrian and Celtic beliefs in folklore section
Sounds interesting, but any sources?

Also, seeing every time I check out this article that infobox is without a picture of Mak Dizdar is making me sad. Someone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 17:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Umihana Čuvidina
Can we replace the picture of Umihana Čuvidina on this wiki? It was removed off her wiki because we concluded that the lady in the picture is not Umihana.... Umihana was born in 1794, the first photo ever taken was in 1826, and photography didn't become widespread until the 1840s.. she would have been in her 50's by then and the lady in the picture looks about 20. Also multiple sources that show that picture state the lady in the photo is "believed to be Umihana Čuvidina." --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a previous discussion regarding the photo and its graphics which could explain why Cuvidina is made to appear younger than 50. Cuvidina is one of the few historic women we have at our disposal, and whether the photo actually depicts/resembles her or not is to be taken with a pinch of salt. The fact that the photo is widely believed to be of her ought to be sufficient in this circumstance. Praxis Icosahedron  ϡ ( TALK ) 18:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Danis Tanović
According to Bosnian Wikipedia (http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosanci) Danis Tanović is identifying himself as Bosnian and not Bosniak. If that is true then we should replace him. Otherwise, if we decide to keep him in the infobox, then we might as well have a picture of Meša Selimović. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 15:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent additions to the infobox
Well I would first like to underline that it was agreed the infobox should be limited to 4x4 individuals. Having more than that makes it appear silly and as a feeble nationalist attempt at bragging. Moreover, Colakovic, the only Bosniak author of the modern era that we are fortunate enough to have a photo of was removed in favor of such "insignificant" commonplace singers like Beslic and Monteno. Despite their long careers in show-business it would be an overstatement saying they have contributed to Bosniak culture in any exquisite way, as for example compared to Safet Isovic which would be a dear addition. Brkic is also redudant considering we already have an even more significant Bosniak communist-era politician, Dzemal Bijedic. Obreht is (still) far from a significant person, her bibliography amounts to one published book, including her reminds of desperate fishing. As for my opinion, the infobox is currently pretty solid with the exception of Mak Dizdar and Safet Isovic, with those two being two serious examples warranting any change to the infobox. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 00:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

What about creating a huge collage of about 20-30 famous Bosniaks (like in wikipedia article about Serbs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs or Germans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germans) instead? Then we will maybe not have to update the infobox so often. It's just a suggestion.


 * Could be an option, however finding free images of 20-30 (significant) Bosniaks seems near impossible considering it has not been achieved for almost a decade of this article on Wikipedia. I do hope you realize you'd need free separate licenses for all the component pictures. Also, making it easy to update the infobox should be preferable, or? Praxis Icosahedron  ϡ ( TALK ) 16:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is already much more then 30 free images of Bosniaks, but not all of them are certainly of significant persons. Unfortunately. By the way, why is Mehmed-paša Sokolović undesirable in the infobox-gallery? He deserves a place in it, more than Matrakčija Nasuh and Uskufija Bosnevi do it together. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIbwmNIuFMk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 18:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

US
Can someone find a better source for the # of Bosniaks in the US. The current one describing 350,000 Bosniaks in the US is a) not from a census or study and b) talks about Bosniaks in both the US and Canada. 23 editor (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)