Talk:Serb Muslims

23 editor's revert
What is there to discuss? It is evident that Zoupan should be very content that I settled with merely clearing out the blatant rubbish which fails to meet almost every one of Wikipedia's pillar guidelines, instead of making a disciplinary errand out of it right away (which I am contemplating). The article purports to be about "Serb Muslims" but would do better with the title "Serb nationalist theories on the origin of Bosnian Muslims". The so-called historic "evidence" presented in one of the sources by a, lo and behold, Serb economist is laughable and at best anecdotal. Other sources are either highly irrelevant (as for instance contemporary examples of non-significant Bosnian Muslim individuals who identify as Serbs, which in light of the other baseless POV is implied to represent further "evidence" of the Serb origin of Bosniaks), or just plain wrong and misinformed (such as the claim that Bosnian Muslims en masse declared Serb and Croat ethnicity prior to 1971). All it takes is a look on the 1948 population census in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I've also provided an RS to corroborate that. I'm well aware that we have had our clashes over the years 23 editor, but I still know you as a sensible editor receptive to reason and discussion. The issue of POV and WP:SYNTH, based on strikingly flawed sources and logic, with this article is dazzling to say the least. We might just have to introduce acclaimed scholars in the way of Fine and Malcolm to deal with this delicate history instead of delegating it to economists, political scientists, and obscure Balkan "historians" on the fringes of what might be considered a "sholarship". Amusingly enough, Zoupan had the nerve to remove a reference to University of Washington historian and lecturer Denis Basic (Ph.D.) in another article as "unreliable", but then goes on to entrust economists with historiography. I might just go ahead and request an enforcement of the discretionary sanctions imposed on topics related to the Balkans. In no way does my edit fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT given the blatant breach of WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 18:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * First off, let's keep our history out of this. I have made very clear that I wish to keep our Wiki interactions minimal. As far as the article is concerned, I would endorse redirecting this page to Serbs and spreading the well-sourced parts out among Religion in Serbia and Islam in Serbia.


 * As far as Serb Muslims themselves go, there are and have historically been many, and you yourself would seem to agree. With regard to WP:RS, Balkan-related articles frequently use "economists and political scientists" as references (Tomasevich was an economist, for example, and Ramet is a political scientist). Heck, we've even deemed a skin doctor a reliable source. The fact that the individual you are referring to is an economist does not hurt his reliability per se. I think it is regrettable that Zoupan chose to remove Denis Basic from the references on the other article, citing unreliability. Having said that, it is highly irresponsible to deem certain authors "fringe" simply because they don't match your point of view, as you've done with Cirkovic.


 * No need for this to become a s*itstorm, as you so aptly put it. I'm hoping cooler heads will prevail. Don't forget that one of the five pillars is consensus-building. Be WP:BOLD, not asinine. 23 editor (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Economist or not, she (a female, not male) motivates her highly controversial conclusion (in fact, a conclusion absent from the realm of mainstream historiography) in the footnote by tendentiously claiming much historic evidence to prove [do take note of the phrasing, it's a matter of proving it] the predominantly Serbian origin of Muslims who converted.. but without giving any serious references whatsoever to support that. Instead, she goes on to bring up examples of Slavic Muslim individuals who may or may not have declared Serb ethnicity, also referencing a Serb authored list to that effect. Of course, this "proves" absolutely nothing. There can be a thousand Slavic Muslim individuals declaring Serb identity since the national romanticism of the 1800s without it "proving" the Bosniaks to be "Serbs" by ethnic origin anymore than what a thousand examples of actual Serb Muslims will prove the Serbs to be Bosniaks. Any remotely serious scholar will dismiss such a reasoning as circumstantial. Acclaimed mainstream scholars, such as Malcolm and the even more eminent Fine, have since long conclude that 1) the names Serb and Croat, though occasionally appearing in peripheral areas, were not used in Bosnia proper, 2) all that one can sensibly say about the ethnic identity of the Bosnians is this: they were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia, and 3) Orthodoxy barely being present in Bosnia proper prior to the predominantly Orthodox Vlach migrations of the Ottoman era. A myriad of mainstream scholars have followed suit. I do of course not deny the occurrence of Serb individuals converting to Islam, or Slavic Muslims declaring as Serbs (my recent edit to Mesa Selimovic testifies to that). That does, however, not relate to the obvious issue at hand: the Bosnian Muslims (i.e. Bosniaks) being claimed as Serbs based on a mythologic and unsubstantiated idea of Bosnia's medieval population having been ethnically Serbs. I urge you to take a look at the cognate Croat Muslims and compare the two premises. It is so very apparent that this page which purports to deal with religious matters is employed to expose views of the Serb nationalist historiography on the ethno-national history of Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims). I support the suggestion to "redirect the page to Serbs and spreading the well-sourced parts out among Religion in Serbia and Islam in Serbia". Same goes for Croat Muslims, seeing how small the communities of actual Serb and Croat Muslims are. And by the way, I never dismissed Cirkovic as fringe, must have been a mistake in such case. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 18:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)