Talk:Bosnians/Archive 1

The meaning of being ethnic
Let's say an african is living in Norway and calls himself norwegian, which is completly ok since he's a citizen of the country. But can he call himself norwegian in the same way a norwegian calls himself or herself. No he can't he is not an ethnic norwegian by other words he is not norwegian in his genes or heritage, he is not what some people would call a real norwegian.

Do you get my point Dado, it's the same thing with bosnians. A Croat or a Serb can't be bosnian in the same way a bosniak is, since the bosniaks are ETHNIC BOSNIANS, BOSNIANS IN THEIR HERITAGE AND GENES. Can you call a serb or a croat an etnical bosnian, NO YOU CANT SINCE THEY ALLREADY ARE ethnic croats and serbs, and you can't be both an ethnic bosnian and an ethnic serb or croat at the same time, that's impossible, you have only ONE ethnicity, the bosniak ethnicity is bosnian...the croat ethnicity is croatian and the serb ethnicity is serbian. You could consider serbs and croats as immigrants to Bosnia at the same way africans in Norway are immigrants. WHAT IS THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND !!!

Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia were all states of Yugoslavia. It's like saying "You were born in New Jersey,but you live in New York." You would consider them New Yorkers or Americans. Before the Yugoslav Civil War everybody was known as Yugoslavians. Only Slovenians and Macedonians had a real ethnic difference. --Damir H.

Bosnian Croats and Serbs did not "immigrate" to Bosnia. They'd settled there during the 6th and 7th centuries, along with other Slavs and Avars. They, along with the Bosnian Krstjani (and the theories range about their origins) founded the medieval Bosnian state, upon which we base modern Bosnian and Herzegovinian statehood. They're as native to Bosnia as Muslim Bosniaks. Therefore, those Croats and Serbs who prefer to call themselves "Bosnians" naturally identify with their native Bosnian soil over some pan-Serbian or pan-Croatian national aims, which neither you nor Mir Harven seem to appreciate. Ivan Ilir

Classifications that you are talking about are not as rigid as you may think. The point of the article is not to portray Bosnians as ethnicity that you may define to be a group of people that share common genetic make-up (although it is not necessary to have genetic similarity to be part of an ethnic group). The article considers Bosnians as a nation which is much more loosely assembled group of people with common traits and interests (not necessarily genetic). Still more genetic similarity between Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks is much larger than genetic similarity between Africans and Norvegians so your comparison is rather poor. Bottom line the point of the article is to define an identity of people that generally emphasize their Bosnian identity as a choice over their ethnicity. Specifically, a Bosnian Serb or a Bosnian Croat can be as much Bosnian as Bosniak if they choose both inherently as people stemming from teritory of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as anthropologically as people belonging to the same or similar cultural group. I would also ask you to sign your comments as I feel strange talking to an IP address. --Dado 23:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

But Dado what you are trying to say is that serbs and croats are as much bosnians as bosniaks(BOSNIANS !!), unbelievable way of reasoning... as you maybe recall neither serbs or croats want to call themselves bosnians, they prefer calling themselves serbs and croats (because that is what they are) and furthermore you know very well that the serbs and the croats wanted Bosnia and bosnianhood to disappear some ten years ago, they wanted to split up Bosnia between them and connect to croatia and serbia, they don't want at all the expression BOSNIAN to exist they don't want BOSNIA to exist, please try to understand. When saying "I am bosnian" NOBODY thinks of serbs or croats, the first thing that crosses their mindes is BOSNIAK


 * Actually, yes, they do :) These daily-political classifications as *only* Serbs or only Croats are a matter of opinion, but for example in Croatia it is no less common to say that someone is a "Bosanac" if they are Croat, Bosniak or Serb. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   19:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Putting the article on a side and on a personal note I recognize the current opinions and politics on the ground, but why do you want to help those individuals who don't want or accept to be Bosnian or who are distroying the bosnianhood as it was defined for hundreds of years. Their denial and your acceptance of their denial all looks to me as a feuded stubborn family affair that is part of a vicious cicle. Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats will never want to be considered Bosnians as long as there is someone to tell them they have no right to be one which is what you are claiming. I realize they would probably not change their mind anyway but the historical definition of Bosnianhood includes those people no matter if they currently like it or if you currently deny it. The option still exists today if they choose to use it and it is how nations as ideas survive.--Dado 01:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, a black man can still be or become Norwegian, as all Norwegians were not of the same descent, the thing that glued them together was culture, not genes. Ethnicity is not genetic, but cultural, we did all stem from one race. I do know that people dont have this view in their head, but thats because their head was thought this way. Thus, a claim that they cant be is racist, not scientific, let alone objective or neutral.

To whom it may concern:
The information here should be deleted because it is false. Person who was posting definitions and explanations of who Bosnians are has no knowledge, education, experience, and credentials to define who is Bosnian. It is very sad and unfortunate when someone who has no clear idea what "Bosnian" is, after so many Bosnians who died for their Bosnian Nation therefore definition as well, ignores it and post on the Wikipedia that Bosnians are Serbs or "Bosnian Serbs". Bosnians are "Bosnian people of all religions" who admit Bosnia as their homeland country. To claim that Bosnians are Serbs is as if you claim that Serbs are Croats, and Chinese are African.

Bosnian of orthodox, catholic, islamic, hindu, urdu, buddistic or any religion whatsoever is Bosnian if he choses Bosnia as his homeland country or simply "country" and his religion is at this point irrelevant. He is still Bosnian. Serbs clearly do not admit Bosnia as their country, therefore they can't be defined as "Bosnians". In the same way, you can't claim that Serb is Bosnian because he already said he is "Serbian". Neither you can define Serb as "Bosnian Serb" therefore as "Bosnian" because he still admits Serbia as "his country", and not Bosnia.

Why are you defining people who don't want to be Bosnians - "Bosnians" and not allowing others who do feel they are Bosnians to say so? Even if you think that he is "Bosnian" because he lives in Bosnia, it is his will to claim what country is "his country", and if he claims he is "Serb", you can't change that. At least you know he is not Bosnian. At the same time if a person is claiming he is "Bosnian" no matter what is his religion, even if heis orthodox or catholic, he is Bosnian because he admits Bosnia as "his country", so don't call this person Serb, Croat or whatever, he is Bosnian. It is his choice.

Bosnians died for Bosnian language, for Bosnian Independence, for Bosnian freedom, for Bosnian Identity, for any Bosnian who belongs to Bosnian Nation no matter what religion that Bosnian were. Bosnians of all religions were dying to defend Bosnia from Serbs, Croats and everyone else. How ignorant someone can be to dismiss any criticism they receive here, and not to attempt to change the definition knowing that it's insulting to Bosnians to be defined falsly. Please correct definition otherwise it serves no puprose to anyone, and it's insulting to all Bosnians.

Instead of giving us a lecture and resorting to personal attacks while you have no clue about who wrote the article why don't you propose a specific changes that you want to take place in the article. Thanks --Dado 15:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dado, he does still have a point, althought the emphasis is not majorally on country but culture. U cant say that Serbs or Croats dont want to admit they are Bosnians, if they feel it as their culture they are, if not they arent. U c culture only exists in the present, the past doesnt count, coz today isnt the same as yesterday, the fact that some of their ancestors, yes some or even the major part, were Bosnians doesnt matter, as it doesnt matter that the ancestors of Bosnians were Slavs, Ilirs, Red Croats, Romans,etc. Today their culture is different, so if their culture is serbian it is serbian, if croatian it is croatian, if bosnian bosnian, if bosniak bosniak. If u would like to take the past in account, then there are no cultures but one, the human one, deriving from Adam (scientificly or teologically speaking there was an Adam). So we all are one. And religion had a big role in defining what is Bosniak for instance, a smaller one, but still large for Croats and Serbs, especially in Bosnia, coz they felt, they had a different culture because of that. Oh yes there was also a lot of intentional migration of Serbs by the Ottomans, besides the migration peoples chose for themselves.

Clean up tag
This article has been given a clean up tag due to its containing multiple badly structured sentences, being downright confusing, and stylistic issues such as large blocks of text that could probably be broken up into smaller usable paragraphs. It probably also deserves a disputed neutrality tag as well, but I don't feel like I'm capable of judging that. If you can't even define what a bosnian is, you need to fix or quite possibly completely rewrite the article. --Tjstrf 07:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there are some language problems due to various partial edits which were done over time. There may also be some issues regarding the accuracy but hardly enough to justify a neutrality tag. A good editing could do the job. I would appriciate the help as I had read the article too many times to realize the conceptual mistakes easily. I need a fresh eyes to look at it. Thanks --Dado 17:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem for me is that I am not well informed about the issue. (Hence my looking it up in the first place) As far as just grammatical stuff, I'll try to help with that.--Tjstrf 01:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Disputed tag
First, a personal disclaimer: I am from Bosnia and I don't mind being called bosanac. But the contents of this article is more your wishful thinking and POV than it resembles anything close to (sad or good, depending on one's POV) reality. The truth is that over {n%, n>95} of Bosnian population declare themselves as one of {Bosniak, Serb, Croat}, and over 50% of these are either offended or at least uneasy when being referred to as a "Bosnian", especially in ethnic sense. Thus, you will hardly sell your ideas on a "pan-Bosnian" nation. I accept that there is a (small but not so insignificant) amount of people that do declare themselves as Bosnians in ethnic/national sense (similar as Jugosloveni in SFRY), but this article does not talk about them, at least not exclusively. Further, figures are misguiding, as they refer to all people living or originating from Bosnia, but the text is clear as mud in whether it refers to residents of Bosnia or imaginary "Bosnian nation" (with tendency towards the latter). As a parallel, "Belgians" (residents of Belgia) do not have their own page. I don't see why Bosnians would have one, and especially not like current one. Duja 15:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you first have to distinguish the difference between ethnicity and nation. It is more complex than what you are making out of it especially when one considers modern definition of a nation.


 * This article is not talking about Bosnian nation in an ethnic sense which is how you may be understanding it.


 * One can belong to different ethnicity and still be part of a Bosnian nation. This article does not claim that Bosnians are an ethnic group but they are a nation because they portray certain distinguibale traits. Their particular traits are based in culture, customs, territory, common history and choice, and not necessarily common genetic make-up, religion and herritage.


 * You said it yourself that you don’t mind being called a Bosanac. That is a whole point of the article.  You are not the only one who accepts being called Bosanac and I am sure that you have expressed it several times as well which falls in at least one of the distiguishable traits of how others would recognize your identity.


 * You are also correct that 95% of population of Bosnia and Herzegovina declare themselves as either Bosniak, Serb or Croat as prescribed choice but that does not prevent them from being part of a common nation. You have no way of proving that such a great number of people would object to being called Bosanac under terms noted above.


 * Each nation is distinguished by different traits so comparing it to other nations does not suite the purpose.


 * If there are particular corrections that you want to see on the article please note them.


 * Otherwise POV tag is not justified.--Dado 17:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am aware of distinction of nation vs. ethnicity. I do get your point. However, unfortunately, we can hardly talk about "Bosnian nation" for a people who nowadays certainly does not have a common national feeling. Let us compare the situation with e.g. France. France is a secular state whose constitution (and/or tradition) defines "French nation" as collectivity of all French citizens regardless of ethnicity, and that definition is in turn backed up by support of citizens involved -- French blacks, French Arabs, French Basques etc. describe themselves "French".
 * However, no matter how you wish it to be, the situation in Bosnia is not like that. "Bosnian nation" is not backed up by constitution, and the concept is opposed by at least 2/3 of its citizens. Bosnia is an ethnicity-based and deeply divided state. I sympathize your POV, but it has little grounds in reality.
 * If you wish, here's a list of statements I dispute; however, I think the entire article is misguided -- you just copied most of the information from Bosnia and Herzegovina page, added your own POV and changed "Bosniaks" to "Bosnians". As it is now, I don't see why Bosnians deserve its own separate page if the primary meaning of the word is quite non-telling "citizen of/person born in Bosnia". I think it's a weasel technique.
 * Many people from Bosnia and Herzegovina prefer to call themselves "Bosnians",
 * Um, many? This is a non-word. Only ethnic Bosniaks prefer so.
 * True, most Bosniaks prefer it. Most mixed marrige families prefer it, Most non-nationalists prefer it. Even some ethnic Serbs and Croats prefer it. At least 2/3 of the population prefers it.--Dado 15:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is fairly OK in regional sense (although some ultranationalists would object). I mean, it is generally OK to call a man from Bosnia bosanac. But we don't have pages for Serbians, Croatians, Vojvodinians, Krajišnici, Sarajlije etc. just to denote people who originate from/live in given piece of territory -- the pages on that particular territory cover that already.
 * During the time when Bosnia and Herzegovina was part of Yugoslavia Bosnians were not recognized as a nation. Bosnians were listed under the category "regional affiliation" by the Yugoslavian statistics.
 * Bosnians could not be recognized as nation because Bosnia was not a state, and those who had no ethnical preferences usually declared as "Yugoslavs". The whole sentence is thus meaningless.
 * Serbia and Croatia were not states either but their populations were recognized as nations.--Dado 15:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Not their populations. Their ethnicities. E.g. Hungarians from Vojvodina were never ever referred to as "Serbs"; "Serbians" (srbijanci) at best (see above for regional affiliation). Since last war, Bosniaks also received that "right" (in the compromise form of the name) but Bosnians did not.
 * Number of Bosnians: these are meaningless figures - 2 to 4 mil. in Bosnia??? Why can't you tell how many of these are, i.e. do you count out those who don't like to be called Bosnian?
 * 2 million is a minimum. Up to 4 million is probably a streach.  (3 million is more realistic)  What do you think it should be?--Dado 15:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Whatever. These are figures about people originating/living in BiH, and as I said above it's irrelevant.
 * In 1992 a referendum was held for the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina which was to be founded on a principle of a single Bosnian nation
 * This is clearly your interpretation. Croats who voted for independence most certainly did not have that idea.
 * This is no-ones interpretation. I am not aware of the Croat interpretation that you are implying and even than it cannot be generalized.   The concept and the purpose of the referendum was clear.  It was based on citizen based Bosnia consisting of three ethnic groups. Perhaps that can be added or clarified--Dado 15:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This interp is not what is wirtten in the article -- it's miles away.
 * While in 1993 the name Bosniaks was re-introduced to replace the term Muslim it was too late for that term to be realistically accepted by non-Muslim Bosnians, as they were already naturalized into Serb and Croat nations during the 50 year long subjugation by Yugoslavia and further radicalized by the ethnic animosities among all three ethnic groups.
 * Here, you reiterate your POV that Bosnian nation kind of existed, but Bosnian Orthodoxes and Catholics were somehow "naturalized" into Serbs and Croats by means of pressure from their respective "home nations". However you put it, that process has not lasted for last 50 years, but for at least 200, as you contradict yourself saying that "Serbs, Croats and even some Muslims opposed Kalay's idea" in 19th century.
 * You are right that the section is a bit unclear about the entire process and should refer to larger segment of history, both the initial rejections and further Yugoslavian rejection, which are by the way not mutually exclusive. It is true also that Serbian and Croatian search for national identity did not start until mid 19th century.  Bosnian identity started later due to various historical reasons.  One does not have to be forced into a particular nation (Serb or Croat).  It is enough to incentize people into joining a particular group while defining particular philosophical reason for such assimilation and denying the other (Bosnian).   It is true also that in the process of Croat and Serb national enlightment the question of multicultural and multireligious  populous of Bosnia in 19th century was intentionally pushed away.  This is still used today to deny the purpose and justification for Bosnian state for purposes of splitting the country up among its polarized population and eventually joining its parts with their primary nation states (Greater Serbia syndrom). The Bosnians did not have to be officially recognized for idea to exist and survive  (we are still talking about it more than 100 years after its inception aren’t we). --Dado 15:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't get your point here. With necessary (over)generalization, Bosniaks' (an united/unitary Bosnia similar to situation in SFRY), Serbs' (disbanding Bosnia and joining the Serbia) and Croats' (retaining Bosnia but under a strong influence of Croatia) goals are well known. There are due and notable exceptions to that, but the idea of pan-Bosnian nation now remains primarily the Bosniaks' concept. That concept was more close (but still far) to reality in SFRY days, but today it's dead & burried among 2/3 of Bosnian population.
 * Finally, if you say that you talk only about Bosnian nation in political sense, what are "Related ethnic groups" doing in the sidebar? What is only "Bosnian language" doing there? How is it related with "2.5 to 4 mil." figure?
 * Related ethnic groups are groups that comprise Bosnians. I know that Bosnian language will be disputed.  The point is that it is a myth that Bosnia has 3 languages.  All  speak same dialect (ijekavan), all read and write cirilic and latin script, and all use uniquely Bosnian words in regular conversation, which are not used in other two languages.  But this is another discussion.  I am sure that when you speak to people from Serbia or Croatia that they can spot the difference immidiatly (I could be wrong but it is a good guess, right)--Dado 15:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, you used "Ethnic groups" template for that. About the language, I can agree that it is the same in linguistic sense, but the reality is that it's 3 languages in political sense, and unfortunately it's the latter that counts.Duja 11:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There's more, but I can't go through every word in the article, Sorry, I'm reverting the disputed tag. I disagree with entire concept of this page (I think it's full of weasel words) and I restate that 90% of its contents are just your POV. Duja 08:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

In the end, current situation in Bosnia is not a clear cut. Yes, there are many who deny the Bosnian nationhood but the clear direction to which Bosnia is going, and this can be seen from recent unifications of many institutions and changing political climate, that Bosnain nationhood is a reality.
 * ...in your dreams.


 * The political climate is cooling down indeed, but note that unification came out largely due to increased pressure of international community and not due to good will of participants. Maybe (but unlikely) this process will continue in the direction you wish but my estimate is that even so, it would take no less than 30-40 years before we can talk about "Bosnian nation". Today, it is wishful thinking.

Perhaps not as well defined and confirmed as French but similar in its inception. Also refer to Europeanism movement. It is perhaps the closest parallel to the idea of Bosnian nationhood.


 * You're either a hopeless idealist  or a hopeless panbosnian unitarist . This is Balkans.

By the way I have used material from several articles and I put it in the larger context. There is nothing wrong with that and it shows that I have done my research.

The article is usefull and justified both in historical and contemporary context. I ask you to make appropriate changes and quit denying its purpose. The article does need some editing but POV tag is hardly justified.--Dado 15:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * At this point, the most we could agree is that we disagree, as I put up my points and I have nothing to add. I'm not up to an edit war on this, but be aware that almost every Serb or Croat that stumbles accross this article will make far bigger damage than I did.Duja 16:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Nikola. Duja may have a particular opinion about this (and I respect it), but it just that, an opinion. The article is not deceptive, it is based on historical data and valid arguments. It is not "creative writing". I have stressed several times that, Yes article does need some editing but the POV tag is hardly justified.

On a second thought I think what you are doing is a retribution for not being able to push your agenda through on Republika Srpska article. I would suggest that you concentrate on that problem first and check your stress level.--Dado 14:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Dado, please stop removing the tag. This is a free encyclopedia, and the tag (please read its contents) serves to warn the readers that disputes exist, and they obviously do. It is sufficient to have one user (and here are at least two of us, while User:Tjstrf also expressed scepticism about it) disagree with the article, and, proven benevolence and serious arguments (both of which, I think, I exhibited), put the tag. Since this is a free encyclopedia, I can't prevent you from removing the tag, but leaving it is the least I expect from you. I did not delete, move or destroy the article (although I still deem it to be highly your POV) but putting the tag is the least that should be done.Duja 15:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Or maybe what I am doing is supporting valid user objections when it is evident that they exist? Me, Duja, Tjstrf, and an anon have all noted factual inaccuracy in very definition of the article. Nikola 17:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

And I have asked several times for you to correct the article in a way that you think it will not be POV. I am sorry if you have a problem to formulate your thoughts in a way that can be applied on the article but it serves no good nor is it justified to so simply brand the article POV without giving a specific reccomendation on how to change it or improve it. Why do you think it is my POV. As you said and I have confirmed I have taken material from several articles and placed in another context that is observable in reality. I will leave the POV tag for now but I am asking for some help here. The article is free and unlocked. What prevents your from changing it. Only than will I understand what specific arguments you have and than we can discuss it again. --Dado 16:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

POV tag
Duje, plz explain why do you keep puting POV tag?! I dont see anything wrong with the article. Can you quote what is incorrect, and try to discuss, before you put the POV tag? Otherwise, your actions are just act of vandalism in the spirit of Serb nationalism. You should better try to improve the article not just acting like a vandal, because Serbs are not satisfied with it. Try to do something usefully. Emir Arven 16:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Emir, care to read 5 kB of text I typed above? Obviously not.
 * And please don't put me in the same basket with Serb nationalists; if Nikola and I happen to agree on this one, that doesn't mean that we agree on all points, and indeed we don't on most. I have fixed edits of nationalists of all colors, and this time it was turn on Bosnian ones. And, as I said above, I did not edit the article because I question the very existence of this article. See my reply to Live Forever below if you care to listen.Duja 19:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Dont worry I read it, and didnt find anything relevant. This is not discussion about usage of the POV tag. And this is not discussion about the characteristics of the free encyclopedia. If you want to put the POV tag, it is irrelevant to say as an argument: "I put it because this is free encyclopedia". Hello?! You have to discuss about the article. The question should be: "What will you do to improve the article without POV tag?"Emir Arven 15:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Then, next time try to comprehend what you read. I discussed about the article at length and I don't intend to reiterate my points for the 3rd time; see below. The discussion deviated into usage of POV tag because you're trying to remove it, basically stating that everyone agrees with the article, which is obviously not the case. And it also strayed into discussion about Wiki freedom because I can't stop you doing it because there's no "higher appeal".
 * As I said for about 3 times, "What will I do to improve the article without POV tag?" is to redirect it to Bosnia and Herzegovina page as many similar articles about multi-ethnic nations do. I don't want to behave like a vandal but I insist on putting the POV tag to aware the readers that the topic is controversial. Please don't behave as if it's not.Duja 09:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ethnicity template
One major issue of concern for me is the ethnicity template. Although I do believe there is such a thing as a "Bosnian" nation (i.e., Bosniaks Croats, Serbs, and others who recognize their personal ethnic heritage but consider their belonging to a multiethnic Bosnian culture foremost) I don't believe this template fits because it was made for ethnic groups and nations. Bosnians simply don't have their own language (as don't the Belgians or Swiss), and the fact that the languages on the ground are nearly identical is nonwithstanding. Its also rather pointless to include "related" ethnic groups. I feel it would be best to create a new "nation" template of some sort that would include sections for "primary languages", "primary religions", "primary ethnic groups", etc. Live Forever 16:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Something like this:

Proposals for four images to go into template (some per User:Live Forever):


 * Tvrtko Kotromanić
 * Husein Gradaščević
 * Aleksa Šantić
 * Branko Đurić - Đuro
 * Live, I can agree with you (sort of). But, here we reached the full circle. I don't deny there are such people. Also, there are many famous persons who should indeed be listed as belonging to common Bosnian heritage rather to make them injustice in old-new ethnic division (let's add Goran Bregovic, perhaps Mesa Selimovic, Ivo Andric and Zdravko Colic) (Also, I'm having problems trying to drive off nationalists fixing national entry for e.g. Rambo Amadeus; hopefully Johnny Stulic article is still OK). But this current article has no such concept. I have to reiterate my previous points:
 * 1) (AFAIK) No other nation has a page on its nationality. All of that is already covered on (sub) pages of the state name.
 * Even if that is true there is no reason why there should not be one. It is a free encyclopedia and if word bullshit deserves an article why not this. I am not aware that writing about nations is forbidden --Dado 22:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I surely can't stop you, but I can object (and vandalize if I were in such mood). But why are you trying to make a precedent here on such a controversial issue? Even you can agree that number of persons who declare themselves Bosnians is significantly smaller than the total BiH population. And I see that you cross-linked many pages to this one; obviously, this is a part of an agenda. Great, Bosnians are an ethnic group of Montenegro (but until the next 5 minutes). Most Wiki pages on ex-Yu issues are now in relative peace and consensus (at least the relatively small percent I watch). It is you who are trying to sell the Trojan horse.Duja 13:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can object with reason. I don't see it being a contraversial issue any more than article Serbs or Croats or Bosniaks are contraversial. If you are calling dismbiguation of this subject (that is obviously called out on many pages and hence deserves a clarification) my agenda, than yes it is my agenda.  But you could also call it my contribution to this project to the best of my knowledge and, thank god, I can be corrected if need be.   I will however leave the your choice of words to you.   I will correct the number that is called out to a more realistic estimate.  I still don't understand your defensiveness and I hardly can understand what you are implying by "Trojan horse".  There are no other issues here that I can respond to.  One correction, Bosnians are not an ethnic group of Montenegro, Bosniaks are.  --Dado 17:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, let's calm down this discussion. I apologize if I accused you too harshly on Bosnian unitarism; I do believe in your good will (unlike Emir's). However, I do see this article as "more contraversial than Serbs or Croats or Bosniaks" simply because majority of the first two oppose the idea of the common Bosnian nation. Since the term itself is obviously too vague, as a compromise, I suggest a preamble with links to relevant pages (similar to Norwegians page), and leave the rest of the article talking about the concept of "Bosnian nation" (unlike Norwegians page).
 * I'll probably put up my sleeves and work on it but not today -- too much real job to do :-(. Duja 09:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 2) There are persons that feel that they belong to common Bosnian nation. ~95% of them are Bosniaks (as this is Bosniak national agenda); the rest either come from mixed marriages or are sickened by nationalism. Bosniaks have their page already, and the others don't form a collectivity that deserves an article (although they should be mentioned somewhere, perhaps in Ethnic Groups of Bosnia).
 * You are probably right about current statistics (not also historically) on how many people consider themselves Bosnians. There is a definite possibility however that this statistic could be wrong. It is not an arguement that justifies the POV tag and any discrepency can be corected and noted. --Dado 22:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is. The ethnicity box puts the number of Bosnians at 4.5 millions. In reality, people who consider themselves as belonging to Bosnian nation probably number in hundreds, if so much. Nikola 10:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 3) Ethnic group template is indeed the biggest problem. Your suggested template is better but a) it's not established and b) see 1).
 * 4) I can't treat an attempt to break established Wiki conventions I mentioned above here, on a slippery Balkan ground, as benevolent. I see it as part of Bosniak nationalist agenda. If there were pages for Swiss, Belgians, Canadians etc. I would have less reason to object, but there are not -- at most, these are redirections.
 * How are Swiss, Belgians or Canadians more benevolent than us? Are we inherently savage?  Perhaps you should step outside the Balkan frame of mind. Greetings --Dado 22:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * He didn't say that. He said that, as there are no pages on Swiss, Belgians or Canadians, there shouldn't be one for Bosnians. Nikola 10:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to show benevolence here. Note that I contributed to Bosniaks page in, I believe, NPOV manner (and I refrain from reverting Emir's babbling on Bosniak Kingdom and dobri bosnjani); I am the one who first wrote Sevdalinka page. But I'll always try to stop nationalists of all colors when they IMO go too far. And this page is one of cases.Duja 19:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

POV
What is disputed here??--Dado 00:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Pretty much the whole article. Which is to say, the existance of the subject in question, the definition of the subject, the history of the subject, etc. The most basic dispute seems to be whether a religion can define an ethnicity, and whether people not liking a definition they are classed under is a valid reason to get rid of the definition. --Tjstrf 08:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, wait. You're one of the main contributors to this talk page. What exactly are you asking? It looks like this will be one of those eternally disputed articles. --Tjstrf 08:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Other than giving the blanket statement about the entire article how about being more specific. Religion is mentioned only few times in the article and I am not sure that it relates to the article in a sense that you may think. Could you clarify your dispute.

"people not liking a definition they are classed under is a valid reason to get rid of the definition." Who are the people that are not linking the definition. So far we had only Nikola Smolenski disputing it and he is clearly not Bosnian nor anyone would even consider him Bosnian (nor a person who can pride himself with objective edits on this and similar matters)

"the existance of the subject in question" The subject being Bosnians you are either implying for the issue to go away or to Bosnians to go extinct (kind of like shut up or die). Bosnians are the fact of life. The issue will not go away.

Am I asking why is the POV tag being placed on this article when no specific issues are being presented and no solutions presented. --Dado 15:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I gave up the fight in this page long time ago, as I feel like having more useful things to do. So, (as probably my last comment on this page), I'll just stress the arguments raised by Tjstrf:
 * If "Bosnian" merely means "the resident of Bosnia and Herzegovina", then this article is pretty much unnecessary, as this is a self-telling definition, and there is already Bosnia and Herzegovina article (which this article should be redirected to).
 * If, as suggested with the current version of the article, it means "Bosnian nation", then the issue of existence of such nation (BiH is obviously not a nation-state) is disputed, as in my opinon, it implies that the majority has a clean identification with the concept, whereas the majority of Bosnian citizens currently opposes that idea, and attributes it to the agenda of political leadership of Bosniaks.
 * Duja 16:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

While you perhaps approach this issue from a political perspective I am approaching it from a anthropological one. Perhaps that is not clear in the article. My contributions to this article was to point out to issues of identity of people coming from BiH. Variably they use the term Bosnians as well as the designation of their ethnicity depending on the circumstances. The definition that Bosnians are a nation makes sense because they have many traits of a nation (not just the common country). I did not mean to write an article about the “Bosnian citizanship”.


 * This is the point where it really breaks down. As written, the article is not about anthropology. The only aspect of anthropology that it covers is cultural anthropology, and since there are 3 cultures involved, all of which have their own pages, it's not necessary in that sense. If you preferred to make the article be solely about the word bosnian, you could probably do that without violating npov. Whatever you think, leave the tag on in some form until we come to a decision to avoid having an edit war. --Tjstrf 22:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As for the validity of the need for the article I don’t think there should be any argueing. The name is commonly used among many local and international circles (as Bosnian and Bosanci)

The core of the issue to my understanding is:

Given that the term Bosniak was introduced in 1993 to replace the word Muslim many Bosniaks select that term as a method of protecting their ethnic interests and historical background within the constitution of BiH. They select term Bosnians when they want to express their identity and assimily within a larger BiH community that includes other ethnic groups as well (similar as in example Germans and Europeans). Some however try to monopolize term Bosnian as inherently Bosniak which is historically wrong if above definitions are in place.

Croats are generally ambivelent to the issue and generally split between Bosnia group and Herzegovina group former being more inclined towards Bosnian identity and latter towards ethnic Croatian.

This one is paradoxial. Serbs more recently do not want to be considered Bosnians, but they also don’t want Bosniaks to declare themselves Bosnians either, as that, in their minds and not entirely baseless, means that Bosniaks are monopolizing the term Bosnian to which they have some rights as well (which they are not willing to pursue). However, many Bosnian Serbs have historically declared themselves as Bosnians.

I accepted that there are some ambiguity about how many Bosnians are there but this is not to say that they don’t exist. I highly disagree that majority of Bosnian citizans objects to the idea and it is a unlikely possibility. It is a complex issue of interests and political games on all sides that makes it seem weaker than it is.--Dado 16:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to note that I don't think that the article should become a redirect. The article could say something along the lines of "Bosnians are residents of Bosnia". But having a history of Bosnians is about as unnecessary as having a history of Transnistrians or Vaticanese. Nikola 08:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The history section goes back only as far as the first mention of the phrase. I see no problem with it.--Dado 16:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Will someone help me out understand how am I violating NPOV. I have asked this question at least 10 times on this discussion page on all I got in return was ambigious rethoric.

Whoever is disputing this article could you please, as per principles of Wikipedia disputes, list out which sections and sentences are disputed, list why are they disputed and suggest improvements. --Dado 01:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is user:Nikola Smolenski who is disputing the accuracy ofthe article Damir Mišić

The English people, Germans, Spartans, Summerians, etc vs Bosnians
Wikipedia is full of entries that talk about collective identities in one way or another (the English people, Germans, etc), so there is no particular reason for Bosnians not to have their own entry. The debate you are having on this page is about 'the national question of Bosnians', which is a bit of an old chestnut and should be left where it belongs -- in the basket of Balkan nationalism.

This, however, doesn't mean that Bosnians don't exist as a cultural, anthropological or historical fact. Even if they did politically exist only for the last 12 years, which is a slightly non-sensical proposition (since the only interruption to their political existence in fact happened in the 20th century), there is no grounds to deny them an entry based on the 'age' of what they feel is a continuous national or cultural identity. Least of all should this decision be made based on the fact that there are people who refuse to recognise them as such, because the decision of who takes precedence here is a political one.

References to the Bosnian people, Bosnian 'state' (in a pre-nation-state sense), etc, date back to medieval times and are widely noted, so we're not talking about a group of enthusiasts that have pulled this one out of their back-side. If there is a country called Bosnia (and whether one likes it or not, there is such a country whose existence has been mentioned for some 8 centuries in one form or another), and even if there are only two people who have a sense of national, cultural or otherwise belonging to that country (and there are more), they have a legitimate right to explain who they are. Though the clumsily designed Dayton Peace Accord recognised the country, but not the people, it doesn't mean that the people don't exist.

Regarding the supposed bias of the entry, there is nothing in the entry that contravenes official historical record or agreement on the issue. This is a standard description of the history of the Bosnian national question, which, in most reputable historical books, is given a lot harsher treatment (ie offensive to neighbouring national ideologies). It appears that the only offence here is that the article claims that Bosnians exist, and I don't think Wikipedia is the right forum to debate this issue. Anthropological argument could save the day for this article - if one can talk about the cultural affiliation based on the dialect, food, living space, proximity, way of life, historical background, etc ...

As for claiming that it is unnecessary to talk about the history of Bosnians, well, yes, it is also unnecessary to talk about the history of Spartans, dinosaurs or Summerians, but we still do, and history of a living people/species/whatever you'd like to call them, should have equal relevance. Fomafomich 10:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to highlight this sentence here. "Anthropological argument could save the day for this article - if one can talk about the cultural affiliation based on the dialect, food, living space, proximity, way of life, historical background, etc ..." For me at least, that would indeed fix the article. If the article becomes informative about things other than just the historical/political aspects of the subject, it may finally be balanced out. --Tjstrf 00:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Valid arguement although some of it is called out in the article. I will write up some material on it in next few days.  Thanks --Dado 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Except that it doesn't exist. Bosnian Serbs, Croats and Muslims have different dialects, eat different food etc. I doubt that the article will become more informative, as there is nothing to be informative about. Nikola 07:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Somehow, I doubt that there is nothing to write about, considering that since the groups all live in the same area they will have a similar culture. Either way, it's pretty much the only way out of this annoying trap of having an article about a subject that may not exist as currently presented.--Tjstrf 09:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, Nikola, they don't speak different dialects. Contemporary political intervention concerns mostly grammar and orthography as an expression of difference of national languages, but not dialects. You will be hard pressed to tease out differences in dialacts if you were reading Aleksa Santic, Fra Leon Petrovic and Safvet-beg Basagic in one go. That's empirically speaking.


 * Well, they are supposed to. Not everyone subscribed to recent language-meddling, I agree. Nikola 11:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Morphologically speaking, the common language of Bosnians, Serbs and Croats developed from a few original dialects and the only morphological argument for a distinction is teasing out regional (not ethnic) distinctions. What you are talking about is that they don't speak the same 'ethnolect', which is a language used as a boundary maker, ie the one that is defined by the existence of a nation. In this sense, it can be said that all dialects spoken by the members of one nation belong to the same ethnolect.


 * You will remember, however, that Vuk standardised the Serbian language using Neo-Shtokavian Eastern Herzegovinian  Dialect, which was spoken in Bosnia and Herzegovina and parts of Serbia proper at the time. Linguistic commonality of the time was more specifically defined by the existence of Neo-Shtokavian Folklore Koine (an example of which is deseterac), which was used equally by Gundulic, Njegos, and annonymous 'folk poets'. Dialects, then, are Ikavian, Shtokavian, Ekavian, Chakavian, Kajkavian ... and they are shared by people inhabiting certain regions. In 1992, Serbian Constitution decreed 'the official use of the Serbian language of Ekavian and Ijekavian dialects'. Interestingly, Republika Srpska (unless something changed recently) decreed Ekavian as its official dialect, which shows an elementary misunderstanding of the origins of their standard language - they reject Vuk's standardisation, and that is a politicised approach to language. Yet, I would doubt that the majority of Bosnian Serbs 'exorcised' usage of words such as bolan from their language, which is specific to the region (Bosnia), not to the national language (in this case Serbian in its two standardised dialects). Likewise, I don't think you will hear them regularly using bre in their colloquial expression. And, consitution or no constitution, I don't think the population of Republika Srpska magically started speaking in Ekavian overnight, so I'd say they still all speak the same dialect.


 * You are wrong here, because there are several Shtokavian dialects, Eastern Herzegovinian being only one of them. Dialect distribution does not precisely follow ethnic lines, of course. Nikola 11:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course there are, that's what I said - contemporary politicised approaches to language reject Vuk's standardisation based on Neo-Shtokavian Eastern-Herzegovinian dialect, the keyword being standardisation not Shtokavian. Fomafomich 10:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Anthropologically speaking, commonalities are everywhere to be found - and they are simple, and non-political. For instance, there is one whole generation of urban Bosnians who describe their New Years Day experience as consisting of 'eating sarma and watching Vienna New Years Day Concert'. Perhaps that has now changed to 'eating sarma and watching Pink TV', and sarma is made with pork in one part, and without it in another, but that's beside the point. All Bosnians (as a cultural entity) ridicule Serbs from Serbia proper and Croatians for calling all traditional pastry dishes 'burek', without making references to ingredients. Only in Bosnia (and all parts of it) does the distinction between sirnica, zeljanica, tikvenjaca, burek, buredzike, etc exist - and it is common. So anthropology, in fact, makes a lot of sense. Fomafomich 09:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You are wrong here again - for instance, there is one whole generation of urban Belgradians who describe their New Years Day experience as consisting of 'eating sarma and watching Vienna New Years Day Concert'.


 * Well, of course there are, we have more commonalities in these lands than distinctions. That was just an example. Celebrating Bajram and both Christmases across ethnic lines with certain peculiarities is one of them. Using a very recognisable slang is one of them, etc ... I don't think that you have to "own" anything exclusively to claim that as your trait, individually or collectively. Fomafomich 10:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that anthropology makes a lot of sense, but I don't think it confirms what the article says. Nikola 11:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Bosniak vs Bosnian
I am going to try to clarify the issue that is being brought up about the origin of the word Bosnian vs Bosniak. Per Damir who has added this sentance to the article:

"Bosnian" is the germanic word for the people whose country is Bosnia (Bosnians - Bosnia), the latin word is "Bosniaque" - Bosniak - Bosnia.

I see no reason why we need to begin an encyclopedic article with the ethimological definition of the word. Such organization is probably OK for a dictionary but not for encyclopedia. Therefore I propose moving this sentance to the start of the History section or we can create a separate section that deals with the origin and meaning of the name.

Secondly regardless of the ethimological origin of the name the meaning of the name has been changed several times in history. The most current meaning is following:
 * Bosniaks are a constituent ethnic group of Bosnia and Herzegovina. As such they use the term Bosniaks to protect their rights through the Bosnian constitution. The term was introduced in 1993 to replace the term Muslims in order to protect rights of Muslims in the contemporary constitutional system of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
 * Bosnians is a common name for all ethnicities in BiH. Since it is believed that all ethnic groups in BiH portray a single cultural identity that can be described in terms of a single nation this name is used to differentiate the commonalities among ethnic groups in BiH from uniqueness of the Bosniaks.

I hope everyone agrees on this issue. For now I will move the disputed sentance above to the history section. --Dado 00:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Is the sentence even correct? How is "Bosnian" a germanic word? What do the latin and germanic variations of the name matter? I say take it out completely. Live Forever 05:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I say we move it to the history department, not in any way remove!. As I earlier stated perhaps the ethnic meaning of Bosnian and Bosniak aren't the same but the lingustic meaning of the two words are exactly the same. Bosnian is in french called Bosniaque (pronounced bosniak), in italian Bosnian is called Bosniac, in the germanic languages bosniac is said bosnian/bosnier...Damir Mišić 12:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * However it should be noted that "Bosnjak" in fact means "Bosnian". Nikola 11:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes Nikola you are completly correct, do you want it to be said in the article?. Damir Mišić 20:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually just read the article and it is already said, so inwhat lies the problem?. Damir Mišić 20:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The original meaning of both words is exactly the same, but that isn't any reason to add completely irrelevant information about german and latin. Live Forever 23:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It may not add particulary to the article, but is it detrimental? If not, I say we keep it in, if for no other reason than that we have had way too many disputes on this page already.--Tjstrf 23:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly feel like it detracts from the article in its current form. Perhaps something more fitting could be written about how the words for Bosniaks and Bosnians are essentially the same in certain languages? Live Forever 01:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How does it detract? While wikipedia is not supposed to be a dictionary, including information about the source of a word is well in line with the purpose of this particular article, especially because this article needs a highly precise definition to avoid controversy. --Tjstrf 01:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But the problem is that the sentence in question says nothing about the source of the word. As words, both Bosniak and Bosnian have slavic roots. They themselves have nothing to do with latin and german. What the author of that sentence is trying to imply is that because in certain languages (i.e. latin) there is no difference between the words for "Bosniak" and "Bosnian" that they are then really two words for the same thing (which is, of course, false, and just the author's personal pov). The sentence detracts from the article because it pushes a fringe pov that is highly confusing to outsiders. For instance, you seem to have gotten the impression that "Bosnian" and "Bosniak" have latin and german roots respectively, when this is simply not true. Please see the article Bošnjani, because I believe it will help explain the situation for you.Live Forever 02:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well do as you wish Live Forever rewrite the part, but just so you know, it's suppose to be in the article one way or another. And please don't politicize the purely lingustic explaination of the words, you somewhat tend to do that. Damir Mišić 17:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I find this to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Live Forever 19:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I will not even pretend to undertsand what that ment, just do as I told you. With all due respect. Damir Mišić 19:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I will do as I please considering that I abide by wikipedia's rules and conventions. I'd advise you to do the same. Live Forever 19:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Civililaty with all due respect but I advise you to have more knowledge before changing articles. Damir Mišić 19:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Live Forever, assuming that just because I understand the roots of two words are identical means that I think they mean the same thing in modern language is tantamount to saying that I think Awful and Awesome are identical in meaning because of their roots. Please do not make baseless assumptions about the intelligence of other Wikipedians, and do not inject politics into what was a perfectly neutral and factual statement about linguistics.--Tjstrf 05:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with the speaker above, shall we re-enter the lingustic explaination then?. Damir Mišić 17:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ...except that he missed the person who wrote that. Since you "agree with the speaker in persion", that means that the "linguistic explanation" should not be re-entered. I thought we discussed that already here already? Duja 08:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Duja I didn't care to answer your post on Bosniaks since I didn't understand your point but I'll go and read it again. Damir Mišić


 * This is unbelievable. I made "baseless assumptions about the intelligence of other Wikipedians"? Because I thought you had misunderstood a topic and tried to help explain it to you? I never even "assumed [you understanding] the roots of two words are identical means that [you] think they mean the same thing in modern language" - I don't know where you got that from. And I'm injecting politics? How? What politics? I try my best to be fair and impartial in editing and discussing articles. I believe I followed this here and have been civil and courteous towards you throughout. I don't appreciate this unfounded counter-attack which I did nothing to deserve. Live Forever 19:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, maybe I was a bit harsh. However, as for politicizing, you alleged that the sentence in question, in your own words "pushes a fringe pov that is highly confusing ot outsiders." You then stated that I seemed "to have gotten the impression that "Bosnian" and "Bosniak" have latin and german roots respectively," which was to me obviously untrue, and I found it insulting that you would make an assumption like that. Especially when I had said nothing whatsoever that would suggest I thought that. I am confident that the wikipedia community can understand that similiar roots does not always mean equivalent definition. Because of this, having additional information about linguistics, though it may not be essential to the article, does not hurt it in any way either. --Tjstrf 04:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is, the sentence does "push a fringe pov that is highly confusing ot outsiders." Please see Talk:Bosniaks. If I may summarize from my viewpoint, Damir's PoV is that Bosnia is the oldest state on Balkans, and Bosnians (=Bosniaks in his view) the oldest people. The sentence we're talking about, apart from suffering from factual flaws, tries to draw the conclusion that the word "Bošnjak" is actually derived from ancient Latin Bosniaque or whatever.
 * By persistent pushing of his PoV Damir has brought himself a kind of "the boy who shouted 'Wolf!'" reputation – many other editors, myself included, seeing his name in the revision-history, apply "rev-first-think-later(if ever)" pattern. Duja 13:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, so the fringe POV involved is due to the author, not necessarily the sentence itself? In that case, my apologies to Live Forever. Though I still think that a factually accurate version of that sentence would not be out of line to put in the article. --Tjstrf 18:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not listen to duja or live forever, these users' edits are spreading like the bird flu. And they also believe themsleves to know what other users think of my edits, but as for that if you two users don't like my edits that does not have to mean that all users think as you. I say re-enter the romance/germanic lingustic explaination. Damir Mišić 19:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Correction
I corrected the year. It's 1993 and not 1990.

Also, that ethnic Bosnians bit I find strange. Why is it that in that form? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Damir, I guess? Duja
 * Wait a minute, when did Damir claim that Bosnia is the oldest state on the Balkans and Bosniaks the oldest people? Could anyone issue proof? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That was my interpretation. Just go ahead and browse his contributions – you don't have to search too deeply to see what I mean. Duja 22:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely unacceptable
This page is a product of wishful thinking of Bosniak/Bosnian Muslim newly concocted national ideology in its quasi-Yugoslav variant. Not "green", but "red". Bosnian nation, Yugoslav nation. Some people seem to be incapable of learning from history. Mir Harven 18:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article. There is a significant amount of academic research in the field of anthropology done particulary on this subject. Other than being your own POV I see no validity in implying and claiming that 1. Bosnians do not exist 2. That they have a same ideological base as Yugoslavs or Soviet nations. --Dado 22:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Anthropology has nothing to do with ethnicity (btw-even in this field, there is a significant difference between three nations in Bosnia and Herzegovina). This "anthropological" approach belongs to the 19th cebtury racialist (not racist) ideologies & is totally absurd and anachronous. There are three denominational-ethnoconfessional national traditions in BiH (as explained in http://www.hercegbosna.org/engleski/dummies.html#nacija) & the page on wiki on this issue is obsolete & essentially-false. One need not be an academician to see through this falsity. The page should better be corrected, for the sake of truthfulness and intellectual integrity. Mir Harven 13:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a bold statement that anthropology has nothing to do with ethnicity and it took me some time to test the merits of that statement and I can conclude that the statement is based on ignorance and lack of research. For starters, if anthropology has nothing to do with ethnicity why is research conducted on various universities on these related subjects. For example

http://www.kent.ac.uk/anthropology/prospective_students/courses/pgethnat.html http://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/5059.html


 * These are student research papers, not scientific works. And, they are beside the point. The racialist theory of ethnicity, as the one appearing in the main article is, I repeat- absolutely unacceptable and obsolete. A person may be of Italian parentage and belong to the French nation (for instance, the composer Jean Baptiste Lully. The feeling of national identity has nothing to do with someone's ancestral heritage or, even more distantly, haplotypes as investigated by Cavalli-Sforza et al. Mir Harven 14:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As for the source that you provided it is clear that this site is your own theory as you have expressed that you are the owner and admin on that website so the source itself qualifies as the original research.


 * The site, generally, contains materials form many distinguished researches in the fields of historiography, paleography, linguistics or culturology. In fact-this is the best equipped (as far as the most prominent authorities on the fields are concerned)site on Bosnia and Herzegovina available. Some pointers are available here:Talk:Rudjer_Boscovich. Mir Harven 14:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Now for the content, if it would at all be admissible, beside the point that is clearly one sided the source presents a debate where on one end there is unsourced claim that “Croatian and Serbian names and identities are "imported" into Bosnia and Herzegovina (chiefly as a result of concentrated anti-Bosnian propaganda efforts).” A position that this article does not follow. The reply beside the point that is not applicable to this wikipedia article, provides no new information but rather chauvinistically dismisses the above claims and attacks Bosnian Muslims (?) to put it mildly as being plainly ignorant about the issue.


 * The claim on "imported" Croat and Serb identities is the central ideological thesis in modern Bosniak historiography & everyday media culture: http://www.iis.unsa.ba/posebna/mitovi/mitovi_dzaja.htm, http://rb.blogger.ba/, http://www.zemljabosna.com/pjesma_bosnjaku.html, ... One could add history textbooks by Mehmedalija Bojić and Imamović-classics of a dated national romanticism & self-deception. Mir Harven 14:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The only statement that could potentially be taken with some consideration is “noun «Bosnian» had not possessed ethnic/national connotation in the medieval period”. However, the logic fails if one considers that no national name such as Bosnian, had ethnic/national connotation in medieval period either as the philosophy of nationalism did not exist back than.


 * Wrong. The prevalent modern theories of nationalism differ between at least three phases of national crystallization: ethnic group, people and nation. Ethnic groups did exist in the medieval period, and the dominant opinion is that there was no "Bosnian" ethnic group whatsoever-as Vatroslav Jagić had put it, history knows only two ethnic names "in these parts"-Croat and Serb. There is no story connected with Bosnian people, even in the medieval sense, that would consider the inhabitants of this polity as ethnically individualized from their neighbors. But, this may be an obsolete way of reasoning. The point is that there is no way one can "prove" any of the following claims:


 * medieval Bosnians were, actually, Croats/Serbs


 * they were a mixture of Croats and Serbs


 * they were a Slavic people who shared many traits with their neighbors, but did not identify culturally with any neighbor


 * Modern historiography's chief claims are that medieval Bosnians were some mixture of Slavic tribes who had both Croat and Serbian traits, as well as indigenous ones, and cannot be subsumed under Croatian or Serbian identities. Or: "Bosnians" were Slavs who lived in Bosnia, but it is impossible to decode, post festum, had they any ethnic affiliation as "Bosnians", or was it just a political-regional designation. The point is that both Croats and Serbs were visibly present in the medieval period, as Muhamed Filipović had claimed in his 1982. article in the Enciklopedija Jugoslavije: http://www.hercegbosna.org/ostalo/etnicka.html Mir Harven 14:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is clear to me, therefore, that your quite arrogant and non transparent stand on this issue is rather a bulling tactic to spread the ill advised propaganda.--Dado 22:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Poppycock. Reverted.Mir Harven 14:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Look people, about every user who came to this talk page expressed their concerns (to put it mildly), yet Emir and Dado keep on removing the disputed tag and accusing others of nationalism and propaganda (to various degrees). I gave up on fighting and let you have your pet niche to play with, but again, what makes you think that the article is absolutely in line with WP:NPOV to justify removal of the tag? Duja 03:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Because you are disputing it from a subjective POV perspective that cannot be substantiated. --Dado 19:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right. Ever occured to you that your perspective is maybe a subjective POV? Did you actualy read people's criticism above, or rejected it a priori because we're all blind nationalists? Duja 01:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that you are a nationalist but I am implying that I am the only one who has been doing research here and providing sources and references. You have been argueing from a POV so far. --Dado 02:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely unacceptable 2
I don't intend to deleve into minutiae of the text, but, let me state it clearly: this is the example of a copy-cat Serbian nationalism, Bosniaks trying to play the role of Yugoslavia-addicted Serbs who tended to identify most Serbian traits (not all- one example is the Cyrillic script) with the Yugoslav ones. On Eurasian scale, the crude equation would be: Soviets were Russians; in ex-Yu, Yugoslavs were Serbs; now we got the following ideologacal delusion: Bosnians are Bosniaks. No passaran. Mir Harven 17:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I rather preffer this tag than having a so-called "npov" article where Bosniaks aren't allowed to have basic nationality rights. Damir Mišić 21:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Id rather preffer this tag than having a Bosniak POV article on BOSNIANS, where Bosniaks try to infringe upon other nationalities( serbs croats) basic nationality rights, in a attempt to monopolize history.--Jadran 05:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Bosnians to include Serbs and Croats
You must have swallowed something, because I do not even nearly understand your, rather strange, point of view on the bosnians article. Croats and serbs haven't, first off, lived in bosnia since year 600 (whoever told you this was wrong). There is not a single "trace" or "evidence" of croatian or serbianhood in bosnia before the 10th century.


 * This is nonsense. Since your page states you speak Croatian: . Besides, the "core Bosnia" was no more than 40% of what is now contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina. One can easily check the euratlas pages:, , , , , , , , etc. etc. This "discussion" is, actually, an exercise in surrealism. Mir Harven 09:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Before serbs and croats entered bosnia, perhaps you've forgotten, other native peoples lived there - the rest is up to you to figure out, here's one clue; bosniaks/bosnians. Serbs and croats have their ethnicity which is either serbian or croatian, it is impossible to have two ethnicities unless you have parents which are both from croatia/serbia and bosnia. But to say that the whole serbian/croatian people are "ethnic bosnians" that would be like saying that whole croatia or serbia have "double ethnicities" and that every serb/croat has both croatian/serbian and bosnian/bosniak parents. What you are saying is that croats = bosniaks = ethnic bosnians = serbs = which means that croats, serbs and bosniaks are one people. Welcome to the future: they are not. Until the croats and serbs of bosnia prefer calling themselves by the name of bosnians instead of serbs/croats they are not bosnians - when they say bosnian they mean this geographicly; bosniaks don't, for bosniaks it means bosnian blood, genes and heritage and not only geography. A reminder for you, why is Siroki football club in bosnia called "croatian football club" and not Bosnian club. Because croats are ethnic bosnians?. Don't deny the croatian or serbian nationhood, this is wrong and I don't know what your purpose is; perhaps to "proove" that serbs and croats actually are nothing but bosnians?. Damir Mišić

Firstly let me tell you something about the "province" of bosnia.and it might shock you, but get ready Dalmatia (and Pannonia)actually before the croats arrived during the roman times was actually much larger then it is today and it including parts( most) of "Present day BiH" evidence: In roman times, duvno (delminium)todays (tomislavgrad) was capital of dalmatia, and where is duvno today??, in BiH.

so for people like you who belive the AVNOJ BORDERS AND take them as where each of the slavic tribes soley settled ...then it shows how neive you are.

the borders of each of the FYR's are artificail just for your infomation...do you honestly believe the croat tribes settled in a crescent( the modern border of croatia), and skiped over neum and settled in konavlje?? If you do then the people in dubrovinik are croats while the people who live in neum are actually socalled"Bosnians"( even though they are from Herzegovina) by your way of thinking?

Your idea of bosna is messed cozz the modern notion of Bosna (od une do drine, od save do mora) is a recent phenomenon, as previously it was not such a distinguisable unified mass rather there was turkish Croata and turkish dalmatia (hercegovina) etc., the real bosna is the area east of jajce and north of konjice.

here is the growth of the real bosnia when in the 11th century

early Bosnia (which covered no more than 20% of contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina, mainly around Sarajevo- then called Vrhbosna)

'''It is Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks, whose major obsession is to enlarge the territory of medieval Bosnian political unit in order to give historical legitimacy to current national/political aspirations that is.. to Preserve a greater BiH and claim all the present day inhabitants of the land are "bosnians( catholics muslims orthodox" in an ethnic sense'''

Bosnia was made up of historical provinces (Soli, Usora, Uskoplje, Vrhbosna, Brotnjo, Klis, Rama, Bekija, Popovo, Podrinje etc) .Your talk regarding there is not one shred of evidence that croats arrived in the balkans in the 600s, is pathetic when it is almost a world accepted fact that they did. Yet you belive a more ridiculous claim where you allude to the original inhabitants prior to the slavs arriving to the balklans to be BOsniaks hahaha hello my friend, it was illyrians andd romans that were living in the then called provinces of Illyria dalmatia and pannonia, which was then on present day bosnia. Or are you trying to say that bosniaks are the decendants of illyrians and are not slavic and are are totaly different people to croats... thats quite funny considering that the albanians have already taken that title, and which brings me to my next question that if there ever was some bosniaks people, which i remind you bosnia in those times was 20% of todays BiH, explain as to why bosniaks and croats are indistinguishable. Woudnt bosniaks look more mediteraenean? so let me explain something to you...if you do not belive that bosniaks are product of islamified croats( or slavs) during 500 years of seperation from the mother countries historical lands, and you cannot prove there was a bosniak nation before the slavs arrival can you explain to me when there national emancipation occured?? and why they didnt revolt to croatian rule during the 900s? or why there is not one recorded manuscript of the bosniak before the slavs arived?

so i suggest you leave the article to be NPOV instead of BPOV, and if you want to keep it that way then it is only fair that the SPOV and CPOV is shown aswell..let me remind you that the serbs and croats could be more aggresive in changing the makeup of this article..howver its up to the reader to decide what is true and what they will accept as fact and not you damir..so leave the article as it was ,as it shows the reality of croat and serb opinion.and you cannot hide that.

Anyways croats who have been living in the regions of Hum and Bosanska krajina (Turkish Croatia) ( as the moajority of these inhabitants are muslim refugees from the military frontier in croatia following the austro hungarian retake of there land in the 17th century) since their arrival to the balkans... The AVNOJ borders do no reflect where the serbs are croats settled... and thus croats and serbs..who also mixed with the indigenous illyrian and roman population( not BOsniak as you claim) are just as ethnic to bosnia( i Hercegovina) as bosniaks are. --Jadran 07:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Oh my god, you are so wrong. No idea. Hxseek (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok this is not true it is questionalbe whether even albanians are decedents if illyrians. I can understand everyones hurt however, please do not try to make up history as you go. Rather accept the truth. I am indifferent however i agree with jadran. It is a fact that today's Bosnians due have Serbian/Croation ancestry. It is because of the Ottoman Empire that Islam exists and unfortunatley it was not something that Bosnians openly accepted at the time it was forced upon them. Serbs fought for 500 years against this empire. Mica 03:35, june 27, 2007

So Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs look like Bosnian Bosniaks because they are actually all bosniaks, am i correct. So can you explain to me as to why Croats from the Republic of Croatia( i.e SLavonija Dalmatia, Istra, etc) look exactly t he same as bosniaks?

Or in your opinion they dont.

I personally belive that albanians do not look anthing like Bosniaks. But anyways, According to your train of thought, there must be a huge difference in the croats from peljesac penisula and konavlje ( the region around dubrovnik) and the "Bosniak" Catholics of Neum

haha, you are so naive The borders of the FYR are ARTIFICAL. Do you understand that AVNOJ borders are artifical! Croats when they settled in the balkans did not settle in a Crescent Shape!


 * "Even the real croats,from croatia, consider the bosnian croats to actually be only Catholic Bosnians and not Croats."

really?? wow, i am curios to where you have heard this FACT?

" "Bosnia" stems from illyrian "Bosona" " Exactly and Historical bosnia is not the modern notion of Bosna (od une do drine, od save do mora) early Bosnia covered no more than 20% of contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina, mainly around Sarajevo- then called Vrhbosna.

So stop with your manipulation and monopolization of History and the use of the geographic term Bosanac to claim that  THE CROATS AND SERBS PRESENT WITHIN THE MODERN DAY  AVNOJ BORDERS OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA to BE CATHOLIC AND ORTHODOX BOSNIAKS ur a joke

YOuve proved it by claiming to be the heirs to the illyrians...well guess what your not illyrian, because only the albanians are, and bosniaks do not look like albanians, and bosniaks do not look any different from the Croats of the Republic of Croatia and the Serbs of SerbiaMontenegro --Jadran 06:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++

User Mišić has made a misinfo:

a) official languages in B & H are Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian, so the term must be referred to in all these langauges-never mind it's the same lemma b) user Mišić incessantly tries to push his POV that Bosnians are some kind of supra-national inhabitants of B & H whose primary loyalty is towards the country of B & H, a not to their respective national communities. As any informed person knows, all political parties in B & H are completely mononational- the supposed exception of SDP is a smokescreen: this is a Bosniak party, as is evident from the membership & proclaimed policy. So, user Mišić tries to present Bosniak national agenda as the all-inclusive Bosnian one. Needless to say, virtually no Croat or Serb would agree with him. Except, of course, some local incarnation of Sejdo Bajramović. Mir Harven 09:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okey?, well all I have to say is; Bosniaks=Bosnians. Serbs=serbs and croats=croats. That would be all. Damir Mišić
 * You said it one million times already and no one agreed with you so far. Duja 09:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

well all everyone else would like to say is

Bosnian= geographic term for an inhabitant of the PROVINCE of Bosnia Croat= Ancient ethnic name of a Tribe/ NATION Serb= Ancient ethnic name of a Tribe/ NATION Bosniak=decendants of Islamified Croats ( and lessor extent Serb) Tribes that would be all :)--Jadran 02:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Enough is enough
I think any rational edit policy should take into consideration the following fact: constituent peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina are Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs. Any attempt to deny the existence, culture, history, language, national traditions...of these peoples-and their very existence- is completely unacceptable. All edits and reverts based on the assumption of denial of Serbian, Bosniak or Croat ingredients or character of the Bosnian and Herzegovinian history and contemporary condition should be deleted or reverted immediately, without further discussion. Of course-this does not imply that differing POVs on various questions (from my experince, mainly ethnic/national attributions of some historical/cultural figures or regional histories) should be prevented from being discussed, supported by quoting verifiable sources etc. But, the denial of the nationhood of any of the three Bosnian nations is an expression of despicable chauvinism that should not be tolerated. Mir Harven 14:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Harven I have returned the article to its original version, before all this. I think we should consider this issue closed, you to jadran. Damir Mišić 16:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely unacceptable 3
"The Bosnians (Bosanci; sing. Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian Bosanac) is the English term for inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A Bosnian can refer to a Bosniak, Bosnian Croat, Bosnian Serb, or a member of any other ethnic group or religion, who permanently resides in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is a sizable population in Bosnia and Herzegovina today that believes that Bosnians are a nation that has a distinct collective cultural identity. Same assert that Bosnians are in the process of developing a collective identity one which will diminish existing political and ethnic divisions."

this is beyond a joke, and clear example of vandalism aswell as an attempt to monopolize history by Damir and his buddies--Jadran 04:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC) --Jadran 04:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then add the opposing position to the paragraph as well, aiming for a balanced representation of what the different views are. Neither of you is ever going to succeed through edit warring for what has been literally months on end. Therefore, you must either compromise through including both views or strictly neutral statements. --Tjstrf 04:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Two version back we had a statement that Bosnians are a nation. One version back we had a statement that Bosnians are merely a term. I thought this last one covers at least both of those positions where at least one is sourced. What is specifically wrong with this version now. It is called a compromise based on facts --Dado 04:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, let me state that I have no opinion on this article's actual content. However, this edit war has gone on to the point that it has become absurd. In the long term, we need consensus rather than arbitrary declarations as to whether it is or is not POV, which is what a lot of the edit-warring seems to be over. Basically, I am on the sidelines here, and do not wish to be caught up in some futile debate over whether the Bosnians make up an ethnicity or a country a nation or a label or whatever. After reviewing the last 10 or so versions of the page, my own personal revision of the article introduction would read

''Bosnian (Bosanci; sing. Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian Bosanac) is the generic English term for all inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina. More specifically, Bosnian can refer to a Bosniak, Croat, Serb, or any other individual who permanently resides in Bosnia and Herzegovina, regardless of ethnicity or religion.''

''In addition, there is a sizable population in Bosnia and Herzegovina who believe that Bosnians are a nation holding a distinct collective cultural identity. By this usage, a Bosnian would be an individual who belonged to this culture. They assert that this collective identity is capable of diminishing or overcoming existing political and ethnic divisions. However, this claim is denied by the majority of Croats and Serbs, and even by some Bosniaks.''

Hopefully that is neutral enough to keep you from editing the hell out of it. If so, I would propose we agree to put it up as the new article heading, and further agree NOT to change it until the basic issue has been resolved or at least further discussed. That way, we could focus on the latter portions of the article where the actual content resides. If you have a problem with this wording, suggest a change here.

If enough verifiable information can be collected regarding the second definition, a possibility, though not one I would really support, would be putting the second definition into its own article, and changing the latter part of the second paragraph to say "For this usage of the term, see Bosnian (whatever the proper distinguishing term is)." --Tjstrf 05:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal is in the spirit of what I have already edited with few wording changes so I am OK with it. Only in the last sentance I would change "majority" into "many" as no data can be found to substantiate such statistical statement ie. "majority".

I don't see that we would need to split up article into something else as the definitions are related and mutually not exclusive. We don't need to make of this more complicated issue than it is. It is relatively difficult to provide a link to sociological and anthopological studies being conducted in Bosnia regarding Bosnian national identity but the link I have provided does point to at least one Political force that supports and pushes the idas that are described in the second portion of the definition. The same political party has about 13% support in BiH while other parties who may have not as explicitly defined their position relative to this issue also generally support it. I would say that at least 1/3 of the Bosnian population (if not more) would probably agree with the second part of the definition. What else do we have that is disputed?--Dado 18:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC) There is data to support "majority", and that can be reflected through RS, if the majority of Serbs agreed with the last senstence then i doubt RS would exist, nor do i believe croats would be demanding for their own entity or the cantonisation of BiH to give them some sort of self rule/power in governing themselves, It is only Bosniaks who want BiH to be a centralised state on the basis of a single Bosnian Nation. However i fully support your proposed structure for the sentence Tjstrf. But putting the second definition into its own article, is a bad idea as we all know what it would lead to, just ask Damir.--Jadran 02:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, that makes sense. I'd say we should leave the word majority in though, since it has a meaning in between the other options. Saying "some" would imply that it was a minority, or at least not more than half, that were opposed. I considered saying many, but that was rather vague. At least in my mind, many would imply the 30-60% range, while most would be 60-90%. Majority just means more than half. (Not having any qualifier at all would be even worse, since it would imply there were no substantial members of the group who dissented with the majority view, which I'm sure there are some of.) By using "majority" we are giving the precise implication that it is more than half of them, but no further connotation as to how much more than half, as would be implied by saying most. The secondary article idea was only a last ditch possibility if we couldn't find any agreed upon version, as I said, I wouldn't really support the idea unless it was necessary.

So, we agree to make that into the article introduction then? --Tjstrf 03:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Do we really have any dispute here?
Upon looking over this further, I am beginning to wonder why there is a dispute here at all. What is, precisely, the difference of opinion here? Definition A states, in essence, that Bosnian is the standard term for people who live in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Definition B states, in essence, that according to some people Bosnian is the term for people who are a part of the Bosnian culture. (the comments about which groups use this definition are inconsequential to its meaning) Are the users of definition B claiming that some permanent residents of Bosnia/Herzegovina are not Bosnians, or is the entire issue here whether being a naturalized resident of a country qualifies you as a member of its cultural identity?--Tjstrf 05:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You may be confusing the naturalisation of an individual into a particular group with identifying an individual that already posseses traits common in particular group. For example a French can become naturalized American but he/she will retain its cultural traits specific for being French. This is something that cannot be done over night or by signing a piece of paper.

On the other hand many Bosnians already posses common cultural and anthropological traits but they are either denied to be commonly refered to as Bosnians or they are (or choose to be) classified under other cultural/ethnic groups that claim their membership by various historical or natural relations.

Some permanent residents of Bosnia may not be "Bosnian" by identity if they do not share traditionally common cultural and anthropological traits with the rest of the group. This is not to say that they will not become one either over years or through two or three generations given also that the traditional commonalities defining a group will probably also change in that time period.

The muddle starts with the term Bosniak that was introduced to replace the term Bosnian Muslim. This is a very complex issue and in order to understand it one must look at the context in which that name developed in last 30 years. Bosnian Muslims are Bosnians but some 30 years ago they were generally defined as undecideds. Also many non-muslims also defined themselves as undecideds. The problem lies that some 30 years ago a name was adopted that inheretly refered to these undicideds as Muslims in Bosnia while it neglected the possibility that many non-muslims would also decide to be identified as Bosnians if that option ever existed. This was a deliberate political move on the part of Serbian and Croatian political lobby in Bosnian (especially Serbian) as a preventative method not to allow a possibility of many Serbs and Croats in Bosnia leaving its larger Serbian and Croatian identity by defining themselves as Bosnian (They would surely not going to declare themselves as Muslim). To make things worse the same constitutional amendment defined constituent nations of Bosnia as being Serb, Croat and Muslim ie allowing larger Serb and Croat nations from Serbia and Croatia to have a fair share and claim on the teritory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Hence the war of division from 1992-1995.

What Bosnian Muslims have attempted to do in 1993 is to reclaim their right to be called Bosnians but given the current situation and the fact that the similar constitutional division is still in force (division by constituent nations) the term could only refer to what was already homogenized group of generally muslim inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In such division the idea of unified Bosnian national identity becomes a completely separate subject, one that is not defined in current political discourses but one that has existed and still exists as a force in culture and anthropology. --Dado 18:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What you have said Dado is true in some respect, but the issue is also much deeper, and it is not so much denying the right for Muslims( Bosniaks) to be their seperate nation, as some people claim, but we also must remeber that BIH and its borders are atificial AVNOJ borders, and it is a delibrate  attempt in the falsification of history of BIH to claim that the Serbs and Croats are in actual fact christian Bosnian(Nation)

Historical bosnia is not the modern notion of Bosnia (Bosnia & Herzegovina BiH, which is conveniantly shortened by Bosniaks(advocats of a unifed Bosnian nation)) that is, od Une do Drine, od Save do Mora, it was only   20% of contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina, mainly around Sarajevo- then called Vrhbosna. It is worth while mentioning that the provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia encompaced much of modern BiH.

Now you might say its in vain to suggest the inhabitants of these regions was croat or serb, but then again its a farce to say they possessed any political or ethnic individuality and identity of being Bosnian.

Bosniaks have a right to (i wouldnt say reclaim), call themselves a seperate nation, but the use of the term Bosnian, at the same time, infringes upon serb and Croats cultural history. It does truely MONOPOLIZE the history of the ENTIRE BiH to be "Bosnian" ,and i guess that is also why Serbs and Croats are against the choice of the national name for Bosnian Muslims to be Bosniaks, because of the similiarity of the word, it will eventually become one and the same.

Simply to Serbs and Croats, Bosnian is a geographic term to refer to an inhabitant of Bosnia(and Bosnia alone), and they beleive the use of the word Bosnian in national sense(unifed Bosnian nation) will intrude on there right to becalled Bosnian, as it wil strip them of there national identity Serb and Croat,and thus be assimilated into a Bosnian nation (serbs of serbia, croat are of croatia, and bosnian are of the Modern Borders of BiH)

Thus anything cultural within the AVNOJ borders of BiH will be absorbed and claim to be Bosnian.

To give a simple example of this confusing issue, In regards to language: To serbs and Croats, Bosnian is simply a term to describe a dialect of the Croatian and Serbian language. i.e Croatian/Serbian of the province of Bosnia.

While Bosniaks are entitled to have/claim the exisence of their own unique language, the use of the name "Bosnian" intrudes upon Croat and Serbs right to say Bosnian is a dialect of their respective languages.

Serbs and Croats both advocate that the proper name for the language of the Bosniaks is Bosniak language or Bosnjacki jezik.

So the real issue here Tjstrf is what the adjective Bosnian means to each respective constituent group of BiH. --Jadran 03:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So, would you agree that the issue under contention is whether being a cultural Bosnian implies that you be Muslim/ethnic Bosnian or not? (It sounds like there's more than that though...) I'm trying to both figure this out myself and to find a way of summing up what the controversy is that the average user would be willing to read through. Right now, we have the two positions defined, but what the contention between them is remains unclear, so it will also need to be explained, otherwise it will be confusing to the average Wikipedia reader who does not have an intimate knowledge of Bosnia/Herzegovia's political affairs. --Tjstrf 03:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Jadran pointed out correctly that the issue is far more complex and I have barely touched on it. For same reason I think it is not very useful to also include issues of the borders and language of BiH because those in itself are complex issues. It is not falsification of BiH history to claim that Serbs and Croats are christian Bosnians but a valid although not a conclusive position. I would especially point out that claiming that something is falsification is very harsh and one must have strong proof to have such a strong position. Matters of identity and classification of groups are not a clear cut story and there are several levels of identity among individuals that are almost always interconected especially in the complex society such is Bosnian. Derrida and its Deconstruction is a good place to learn more about this position.

I don't see a purpose in stating what each constituent ethnic group of BiH thinks about the term Bosnians because it cannot be objectivelly written and any definition will be doomed for more edit wars, and second, the idea of Bosnian nationhood is removed from the premise of constituent ethnic groups. The premise of constituent ethnic groups is a matter of protection of constitutional rights. It is a matter of choice and I don't see a contention simply because one can found that it is not necessary to declare themselves along ethnic lines to protect their constitutional right while his/her Bosnian identity may be stronger than its ethnic one. As I mentioned there is at least 1/3 of the population in BiH that feels this way. Besides all three ethnic groups noted here already have their own articles.

Cultural Bosnian does not and should not imply only Bosniaks. If this is not clear it should be clarified further in the article. There are many examples both in history as well as today where many non-Bosniaks have shown far stronger sense of Bosnian identity than other Bosniaks have (for example Bosniaks from Sandzak have very different cultural habits than Bosniaks from Bosnia). For some ethnic Bosnian Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks, apart from their names, it is particulary difficult to determine if one is Serb, Croat or Bosniak in Bosnia while they all have same accents, habits, favorite food, common customs, interpersonal discourse etc. many of which are far different in, what Serbs and Croats consider their motherlands, ie. Serbia and Croatia. It is a matter of accepting these natural commonalities over imposed political categorisations. --Dado 04:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

These commonalities are a result of historical pressures specific to a particular region and its experiences, the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina was ruled by turkey for centuries,and as you have said Dado as a result they all have same accents, habits.... etc. many of which are far different in serbia and croatia. But, then again, even within serbia and croatia there is different culture between the SAME people, and that can be shown between for example the croats of slavonija and zagorje and there influence by hungary, while much of dalmatia and istria have a stong italian flavour. It is called DIVERSITY! It does not justify in generalising that the inhabitants of a Country be thrown into a collective nation. --Jadran 07:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

While there is some truth in your first statement I would not see the matter so simplistically. It was not just a historical pressure. Ottomans did exert some influence on Bosnia but so did Autrians and Hungars on Croatia. It is a natural process of developing ones identity.

From a different perspective these commonalities are de facto situation on the ground. How we got to them is something we cannot control. We could elaborate on them in the history section however.

You are a bit contradicting yourself. On one hand you are claiming that there is a diversity among (for sake of argument) Croats in Croatia and I assume you want to include Bosnian Croats in that mix as well, while on the other hand you say that it is a generalisation to throw the inhabitants of a Country into a collective nation. Isn't that what Croatia is doing. If we were to apply a concept we have in BiH on Croatia, Croats would not exist but we would have Zagorci, Slavonci, Dalmatinci, Istrijani etc. I repeat the identity is a matter of choice. There is a well defined choice in the second part of the introduction with a large support in the real life. All I am asking is to let it be and not infringe upon its right to be what it is. The diversity in Bosnia is unavoidable and is well defined in the article.--Dado 14:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what i am was saying. Firstly i need to point out, you cannot apply the same concept onto the RH because BiH and RH are to different situations. Firstly Croats have always existed, and arrived to the balkans as Croats, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest this eg the Baška tablet (Bašćanska ploča). It should also be mentioned that it is naive to believe that artificial borders(AVNOJ) are a testiment to where each coressponding nation settled. Whereas it is a different situaton in BiH where 1. Bosnia in those days was only 20 % of what it is today, and 2. There is conflicting and inclonclusive evidence to say there was a Bosnian Nation in those days and that ALL inhabitants that reside in the 'modern day borders' of BiH had any political or ethnic individuality to Bosnia that distingiushed them from Croats/Serbs.

But then again ethnic(Bosnian Nation) and cultural belonging/similiarities/commonalities (Culturually Bosnian) are 2 different things, and im not sure which view you are talking about???

So then i agree, i think the article the way it is now, is probably the best it could be, however all im am saying is, that allowing for you to say there is a Bosnian "Cultrual Identity" could/may lead to what i said previously, and as a result Croatdom and Serbdom within BiH could eventualy be infringed upon, if this article begins to take a form that Bosnian is a Nation in itself, which some users are trying to convey.

So i do agree there may, to some extent be a cultural Bosnian Identity, but in saying that, it can not be said that each consitiuent people agree with this notion, but are denied by, as you say 'imposed political categorisations'. Their loyalty to this collective identity may not be as uniting and strong a you choose to believe. So im not sure how prevalent this ideaology of a uniting 'Bosnian Culture' is. And there is no way in measureing it.

Also there is another predicament in this idea of a Bosnian Cultrual identity, and that lies with the fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina are 2 regions and Hercegovina became a pasaluk (state) in 1853. At that point, Bosnia officially became Bosna i Hercegovina (2 states in the Ottoman Empire with equal standing).

Sorry for bringing up so many thing, especially this last point wich may become a hot spot, but i think the article should not go any further in a Bosnian Cultrual Identiy because it will then leave a precendent for all other regions eg Herzegovina, Istra, Dalmacija etc. As i would like to say again  Bosnia-Herzegovina  is not Bosnia, to atleast most Serbs and Croats, and thats for the previously mentioned reasons.--Jadran 01:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes we have a dispute; Jadran is most surely lying. Damir Mišić

Your so immature, nowonder that nobody takes your edits seriosuly. you obviously dont have a construcutive attitude to this article, and i really dont see why you particpate in editing?

ohh Damir Just one more thing: 'stop disgracing your honour by having emotional breakdowns on discussion pages; not will this only make you look stupid but there might also be a risk that somebody (perhaps I) will report you to "wikipedia lawyers", who will perhaps block your IP-number. And if you have a dynamic IP-number they may block your whole IP-range block, meaning that no one from your city and internet provider can edit wikipedia. And if this comes to your ISP's knowledge they will punish you for having blocked their IP-range block on a website. Consider this a friendly warning, I will not bash on you since I believe you're a kid/child rather than a grown-up.'

Sound Familiar?haha Take it easy champ ;) --Jadran 10:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Jadran does this sound familiar?: "haha" and "take it easy champ" is so serious, civilised and scientific to use in discussion. Damir Mišić
 * And I'm glad to see how you seem to know what others think of me, I'm flattered of how much time you spend on me :) Damir Mišić