Talk:Muslims (ethnic group)

Slavic Muslims
When I first saw a link to this page, I expected it to be about Slavic Muslims, now I see it's just about Slavic Muslims in SFRY. The official designation, Muslims by nationality, though perhaps more awkward, is unambiguous. Nikola 17:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite
The old article was POV as it was pushing the Serb-Croat nationalist idea that Muslims are something invented in 1968, which were then renamed to Bosniaks.

We all know that Bosniak POV is that Bosniaks are a nation with 1000 years of tradition that were denied identity during 20th century, with a semi-recognition as Muslims since 1970s. I think I'll just skip all that and provide what's NPOV about the issue. Vedran 13:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The current version of this article is fine. With that in mind, I'll stop the edit war in articles for cities (Doboj, Br?ko, Bijeljina etc.) as long as it's clear that "Muslim as nationality" is what the people chose back then and that most of them today would be Bosniaks (since the number of non-Bosniak Muslims in Bosnia today is negligible). Vedran 15:55, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * *nods contently* --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

Request for Comment: Ethnic group designation of "Muslims by nationality"

 * What's the argument?

Infoboxes are only reserved for ethnic groups as made really obvious by the code "{{Ethnic group|". The term "Muslim by nationality" is no more of an ethnic group than "Bosnians". Some documentation for evidence: Muslim by nationality people were Torbesh, Bosniaks, etc.. who had no other choice but to register under this ethnic designation in Yugoslavia. So please, unless you can show me how "Muslims by nationality" is a distinct ethnic group with historical significance, do not re-add the infobox. 72.144.150.20 18:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * Here are official 2002 census results in Serbia: http://webrzs.statserb.sr.gov.yu/axd/Zip/SN31.pdf You can see there that 19,503 citizens of Serbia declared themselves as Muslims by nationality. If they are not Muslims by nationality, what are they according to you? Aliens from another planet perhaps? PANONIAN   (talk)  22:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, and here are official 2000 census from the United States: . You can see that 20,625,093 citizens of the United States declared themselves as "Americans". Nonetheless, "Americans" is not an ethnic group by definition. Who are the "Muslims by nationality" you ask? It says directly in the article:


 * Muslims by nationality was a term used in Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to describe mainly native Slavic Muslims. In connection to the national rebirth and awakening in Yugoslavia during the 1990s they are now officially historically recognized as Bosniaks, Gorani, Torbesh, etc.


 * Are they aliens? No, I don't think so ;) I do think you should follow WP:CIVIL. 72.153.53.193 17:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all: THIS IS NOT ARTICLE ABOUT AMERICANS, but if you ask me about them, they are ethnic group too. Regarding your quotation from the article, you forgot to quote this: "However some people still consider themselves to be Muslims by nationality." Now we have the full picture, did we? So, I will ask you again: are they a Aliens? PANONIAN   (talk)  18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

HOW CAN EVERYONE BELONG TO ANY RELIGION AS 'NATIVE' ?? Any baby is atheist, is absurd to say 'native muslims', they become muslims.
 * I think it means they were born to "Muslim" parents. But I agree, "native" is probably not the correct word to use. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 07:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to Delete or Merge With Bosniak
This article doesn't use reliable sources that are independent of the topic. This article's notability (or rather lack of one) is also not verifiable per the reliable source guideline.

'Muslims by Nationality', was never used as an official term for anyone in the constitution, or any official document of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or Macedonia since English is not an official language and is not spoken within those country. The references used do not contain that term. As almost every sentence in this article explains, the people are called Bosniaks and that's where this 'content' belongs, better yet, since its not notable or verifiable, it should go to the Macedonian Wikipedia. Simpler to delete it since its identical to what's written in the Bosniaks, and Slavic Muslims Wikipedia entry.

This would be a good name for a list of all countries showing how many Muslims are located within each one. The way it's now, besides it being 100% redundant, its also deceptive. The references are not in the English Language. This is not notable, unless maybe in the Macedonian Wikipedia. The references never mention the term 'Muslim' or 'Nationality" in any language.

Please read more: notability -> "not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." Look at the references again after reading that even if we forget the actual term in this title is never used in the references.

I am proposing this for deletion.

Cheers! Meishern (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * References here are valid even if they aren't in English; using the term Bosniaks for describing the history of Yugoslavia would be anachronistic, which is clearly elaborated in the article. I agree that there's a problem with a lack of references for the phrase "Muslims by nationality" in English-language context, but that is not a reason to delete the article. The notability of this term is demonstrated by its legacy - even long after Yugoslavia has dissolved, people still use it in censa in numbers comparable to the numbers of people who use the name Bosniaks. Granted, this would also be better explained by secondary rather than primary sources. But, that's still no reason to delete the article. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Secondary? There are no primary sources outside the census where its just a label for a column of number in Macedonian. The name has got to go since nobody every used it and you can't document it. Anachronistic is good, especially when used to remove fraudulent articles. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I disagree with claims against existence of this article. Term "Muslims by nationality" is different from both related terms - "Bosniaks" and "Slavic Muslims". And also, the term was officially used in socialist Yugoslavia and it is still officially used in Serbia and in Montenegro in population censuses. Term "Slavic Muslims" would include various groups in former Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania and Greece, while term "Muslims by nationality" was officially used only in former Yugoslavia and included groups that are today identifying themselves as Bosniak, Gorani, or Torbesh (or still as Muslims by nationality). For example in last 2011 census in Montenegro there were 53,605 Bosniaks and 20,537 Muslims by nationality, while in 2002 census in Serbia there were 136,087 Bosniaks and 19,503 Muslims by nationality. Clearly, statistical offices of both countries are counting these two as two different nationalities. PANONIAN  15:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Term 'Muslims by nationality' is not used in references. So if it was this common, at least 1 reference outside a census category in Macedonian can be found. If I walked up to anyone and said those words, they wouldn't understand me ? Or would I have to say them in the native language? Need to put this to a vote. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, sources (Serbian and Montenegrin) are using term "Muslimani", which could be translated into English simply as "Muslims". I might agree that title of this article might not be the best choice, but I do not think that Wikipedia articles should be deleted because of bad title. Perhaps name "Muslims (nationality)" would be better? PANONIAN  17:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I support that, Panonian. The title is the problem. I came here to read about Muslims by nationality, and was tricked into reading about something which is completely different. I will support Muslimani and might as well change [Whatever word is 'by Nationality' into that original Language]. The term is historical, i agree, just not its translation. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As for "non-Macedonian references", here you have one that elaborating the issue of Muslim nationality in Montenegro (in English language): http://www.rastko.rs/istorija/srbi-balkan/vrudic-montenegro.html PANONIAN  17:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your link does not use the term 'Muslims by nationality' even once or anything remotely close to it. Which again proves that the title is original research and deceptive. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It use term "Muslims", of course. But, anyway, I renamed article now to "Muslims (nationality)". Is that OK to you? PANONIAN  18:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This argument makes little sense - this phrase is in fact used in this meaning in English-language sources, see any of a number of books at e.g. - yes, even in 2012. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite
I think the introduction to the article could do with some work. The whole of the first paragraph is in the past tense and refers only to the past. However, the ethnic group the article is about exists today in 2017 and has tens of thousands members.--Jednokratno79 (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Terminology of the title
Terminology of the present title of this article "Muslims (nationality)" should be improved by changing the term "nationality" with term "ethnicity" and here is why: in English language, the term nationality is primarily used to designate citizenship, while this article is dedicated to south-slavic Muslims as an ethnic group if former Yugoslavia and its successor states. Sorabino (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We should also consider some additional questions, regarding the best choice of name for category on ethnic Muslims. In future, we could also have several subcategories, for ethnic Muslims in different countries. For example, we have "Category:Montenegrin Muslims" for all adherents of Islam in Montenegro, and therefore a distinctive category for ethnic Muslims in that country could be named as "Category:Ethnic Muslims in Montenegro" or something like that. Sorabino (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Move made from "Muslims (nationality)" to "Muslims (ethnicity)" in accordance with guidelines on Categorization/Ethnicity. Sorabino (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the title change, but I take issues with the way you rewrote the lead. The designation is chiefly of historic interest, as an umbrella term for Slavic Muslims of SFRY, numbering some 3 million in total, and that should be the primary definition, and the historical source of the contemporary affiliation. I do acknowledge that there are still people who identify as such in the successor states, but they constitute just a fraction of the previous population, and are politically organized only in Montenegro (as far as I can tell). Such presentation order is much more reader-friendly. No such user (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed that the term Muslims by nationality was replaced by "Muslims (nationality)", and then this. The original phrase is widely used to refer to this group and I don't see what would be the real reason to avoid that title. Even if it would be considered a WP:POVTITLE it's still better than this weird meandering. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Move
User:Joy or anyone... Can you revert the move? It's highly dubious. Also, can you discuss this move? Governor Sheng (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is possible, but you must also understand that in Serbia (or EX-YU) you will never get a rational answer.--Savasampion (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you imply that you will not give me a rational answer in this case? :) What I meant is can you tell me the reasons for the move? You must of have had some... I believe it was a move done in good faith, but I also believe you had a rationale for it. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. Jesus... You can see a 20-year-old discussion here... :) --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually went back into the sections above about the title, since this is a long-standing issue. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason you can't use the Move function to move it in the other direction? Right now, the old title contains a single revision so the Move function should be able to overwrite it (without requiring elevated privileges). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that worked. I tried to un-do it via "undo" button. :) Governor Sheng (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes the undo interface doesn't work for that sadly. Perhaps ask at WP:TECHPUMP to see if work is being done to clarify that UX issue? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)