Jump to content

Talk:History of the Bosniaks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

[Untitled]

Hmm, the "Illyrian" part needs to be reworked. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute

User:Kruško Mortale reverted the article. Full-scale discussion can be found at User talk:Kruško Mortale#Your edit. --PaxEquilibrium 22:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krusko Mortale, please do not remove the tags. --PaxEquilibrium 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mortale, I'm asking You again - please do not remove the tags. The discussion hasn't even started properly, and the article is still unsourced. Thank You. --PaxEquilibrium 16:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,I agree with PaxE, that the tags should stay for now. - Ivan K 23:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know; Krusko Mortale yet again vandalized the page. I'm going to revert it - I've just put a notice on his talk page, if he does not act appropriately, I am going to ask Administrator Intervention (against vandalism?). --PaxEquilibrium 19:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether it would be called "vandalism", but what he's doing definitely is disruption to Wikipedia. Ivan K 06:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, no; this isn't a content dispute, it's a removal of tags that obviously deserve to be here - for instance the article cites no source and one of the tags asks for sources (unsourced). So it is vandalism. --PaxEquilibrium 10:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well anyway, let's get this discussion started. I'll start of by saying that the section on "Pre-Slavic roots" is not written very well as it seems to be implying that Bosniaks are not Slavs but are the continuation of the Illyrians who just adopted Slavic culture, language etc. - Ivan K

It does not seem to me that it implies that. It appears that it claims that. (and it appears to be Wikipedia:No original research|OR]]). --PaxEquilibrium 20:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least we are in agreement that the "pre Slavic roots" section is not right. - Ivan K 06:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, it appears to me that this article deals on the History of Bosnians. I suggest that we rename it like that - although I think most of it deserves over at History of Bosnia, rather; I think that this article should stick to the ethnogenesis of he Bosniac nation, and should no go into the pre-Ottoman era. Sadly also, the Google search shows only 2 results for this title, so it should be changed. --PaxEquilibrium 11:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. - Ivan K 11:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, because Bosniaks have their own history. But your suggestion showed me your truetrue motive. I think that nationalism is very dangerous dear Mr. Pax. So please don't do it. Bosniaks have their history before Ottomans, but nationalists from Serbia don't think so. As your block log, when you were know as HolyRomanEmperor shows your truly you, I think you are irrelevant for this subject. Best regards. Kruško. Kruško Mortale 12:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Krusko Mortale vandalized the article again; I'm reporting him - I'm so sad that it had to come to this. It always gets me like a lightning when I see people do things like this... --PaxEquilibrium 21:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all. I reported User Pax earlier know as HolyRomanEmperor, because he removed the intro sentence. That is his a priori behaviour in the Bosnia-Herzeg. related articles. Anyone who checks his past will understand that he is disputable and controversial user according to his block log. Yours. Kruško.
Krusko, I have asked You to explain Your outrageous insults, which You failed to do - and yet over and over and over again You repeat them. This is a personal assault and far from being civil, it is not I who is removing the tags, it is you who is vandalizing the tags on this article. --PaxEquilibrium 16:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Krusko, stop with your wild accusations. How dare you call me a "disputable user" - you have not ever interacted with me before and no nothing of my edits, so you cannot just say you are reverting "vandalism" from a "disputable user". It is quite obvious that there is a dispute over this article, so removing the tags is vandalism! Please stop. —KingIvanPwn3d! at the disco 09:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr. Ivan, according to your attitudes about Bosniaks, that you put in your user page you are disputable for this subject. How possibly can you be relevant for the subject when you deny even the name of Bosniaks? And the whole world knows about Serbo-Croatian aggression on Bosnia in order to exterminate Bosniaks. These attitudes were similar to Franjo Tuđman's and Slobodan Milošević's so your cooperation from my POV is very symbolic. You just didn't tell me the reason for putting POV tag. I can accept other tags, but this one, just because you two keep putting it is against the facts. Truly yours. Kruško Mortale 10:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK you two, this is getting somewhat ridiculous. :) What we should do is discuss about this article. I suggest that You [Krusko Mortale] hold the tag until the discussion is over (and it has barely even started). Discuss; notice the first sentence on this page; the very one I wrote. And once again I repeat, comment the content and not the user. --PaxEquilibrium 13:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh. Krusko Mortale removed the tags again ignoring the discussion. Ivan, he thinks we're forming some sort of a conspiracy here and holds his word as more important than the word of the 5 of us that put the tags. I keep posting at his talk page, although that does not attract him to here... --PaxEquilibrium 22:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he continues on in this manner, perhaps we should get an WP:RFC on him? - —KingIvanPwn3d! at the disco 06:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's far too extreme & radical. --PaxEquilibrium 12:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr. Pax and Mr. Ivan, you have very rigid attitudes about Bosniaks according to the above discussion, don't you? If you want to keep "disputed" tag here, then we should put that tag in any article related to Bosnia, Croatia or Serbia. Many of these articles don't have sources, and they are disputed all the time, so do we have a deal, or principle for these articles? If you deny Bosniaks their history, then you should do the same about Bosnian Serbs history, and Bosnian Croats history. I think you two are not quite good choice for these kind of articles because you had many disputes, very intereseting block log (I am not saying who was right and who was wrong), changing the nick name, and many other controversies. Yours. Kruško. Kruško Mortale 12:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course. The tag's sole purpose is to make people act more democratic - like You for example. As long as You discuss here the disputed bits of the article, the tag's off - but You do not do that. I've got nothing against Bosniacs (against a nation? wha?) I'm not denying, I'm preventing historical distortions. And yes, I am fairly good at fighting the Serb and Croat irridentisms about Bosnia as well, thanks for noticing. --PaxEquilibrium 14:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kruško, please stop removing the tags. All of us (including you Kruško) agree that the "unreferenced" tag should stay, as the article quite obviously does not cite it's sources. But apart from that tag, the "original research" one needs to be there because, since the article does not cite sources, the information on this article is unverified, and could very well be original research (the two points that are stated on the tag). Also the "disputed" tag needs to be there, because, as a direct result of there being no citations and having the possibility of unverified claims/original research, there is a dispute going on about the content of the article. Until these issues are addressed, Kruško, I'm afraid the tags are going to have to stay. —KingIvanPwn3d! at the disco 06:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Full disclosure: I was invited to this page by Ivan) Trying to be fair, I haven't read the article in question at all: for the start, I'll add a comment on tags:

  • {{uncited}} should not be removed at all until a substantial amount of sources is added. For controversial topics like this one, inline references <ref>...</ref> are higly recommended, so that the information is readily verifiable.
  • {{OR}} should not be abused if {{uncited}} suffices. Surely, if the article is uncited, there might be WP:OR but that's not the point — when you place the tag, please pinpoint the parts suspected to be WP:OR
  • {{disputed}} is similar to {{OR}} — in both cases, editors are expected to explain exactly what are the issues.

If the addition of tags is not followed by explanation on talk page, then and only then they can be freely removed. Otherwise, they can be removed only by consensus of interested parties on the talk page (provided WP:AGF and blah blah blah). In other words, the bullet of proof is both on the tagger (frivolous tagging is considered disruption) and de-tagger (frivolous de-tagging is considered disruption). See also WP:1RR. Duja► 14:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, having said that and examining edit histories, all I see is a low-scale edit war on tags and a circular dispute whether the tags should stay or go. Having superficially read the article, I'd say that (apart from being unsourced) it's a bit skewed towards general Bosniak POV, (e.g. failing to list some controversies) but not nearly as blatantly as the (in)famous "All Bosniaks are native Illyrians who later were Bogomils and all converted to Islam, unlike alien Serbs and Croats". I've seen (and deleted, heh) far worse things around. I'm going on a wikibreak over the weekend, but I don't see the profound reasons for {{OR}} in the article (I read it only casually, I admit), so I'd say that Pax and Ivan should pinpoint the exact points of contention if you'd like the tags to stay. Duja► 14:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did not request the addition of the tags at all - I only opposed removal by anonymous users (and later by Krusko Mortale). I asked one sentence at the top of the page and yes; you yourself said that which seems disputed/original research - Bosniacs="Slavic Illyrians" - and by the way, yeah Damir Misic wrote this article. --PaxEquilibrium 18:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said what I would consider an OR, not that it is actually in the article. It does mention Bogomils and Bosnian Church, but with a proper disclaimer that the topic is debated. Duja► 10:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivane...

I find your actions pretty pathetic. Just because you have been thought to hate Bosniaks does not mean that others will agree with you. I have been on Wikipedia longer than you and have only met a few users such as yourself. You have not given any points on the article besides that it does not have sources. Look at how many other articles do not have sources, if one compares/looks at every single article, then there are only a "few". What is your goal? (And do not say to improve Wikipedia, since it obviously is not...considering this is complete provocation from your part). Everyone knows why and which Croatians left after World War II. So stop with "your" party's views. You, my friend, are trying to ruin Wikipedia with complete bias, Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks have not seriously disputed this article... (I like my symbolism in the lines prior). Thanks, Vseferović 05:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Pax, I know you are not like that, making the sections above seem more about Krusko then about the article itself. Let’s talk… Vseferović 05:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kseferovic/Vseferović (whichever you prefer to be called), it seems you have come to this talk page just to provoke, and not to comment on improving the article. I was not the first person to put tags on this article - I simply re-added them when they were removed without cause. And do not go around saying "you hate Bosniaks" when you have never met me before in your life and you have no idea what I am like. And don't pretend you are here on Wikipedia to counter bias - you go around to all ex-yu articles inserting POV everywhere, so don't try to make yourself out to be a good guy. I've know for a long time that there are many editors who have issues with you and "your party", but I have not said anything about you and your editing style, because you are meant to comment on the content not the contributor. I believe this is our first interaction with each other, Vseferović; it could have been a whole lot nicer, but you had to come out with all your prejudices and personal attacks. Now stop being one of those people who thinks "everyone is against me, I am such a victim, the world owes me everything", and try to actually improve Wikipedia. Thank You. —KingIvanPWN3D! at the disco 05:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And also, you may not have been on Wikiepdia longer than I have. I have been using and editing Wikipedia since I was in Grade 9 (2003), and it was only this year that I created an account. —KingIvanPWN3D! at the disco 06:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Oh for the love of God: this article was simply a dumping ground for the Bosniak article's excessive history section - I can't believe people are making such a big deal over it. To be blunt and to the point, the "Factual accuracy" and "Original research" tags are absolutely ridiculous when we take into account that their proponents have hardly provided a single direct complaint. What, exactly, do you think is not factually accurate? What, pray tell, might be "original research"? To an extent, the same point applies to the "no sources" tag; thanks to a concept called "general knowledge", not every statement on wikipedia has to be specifically referenced. Instead of simply labeling the entire article with misleading tags, point out specific problems and try and improve them. For example, rather than putting up an "unreferenced" tag on an aritcle composed largely of basic historical facts, you could place [citation needed] on specific statements that require verification. This is assuming, of course, that the placement of these tags was done out of general concern for the improvement of Wikipedia (as opposed to, let's say, some sort of personal offense at the article's content). If that is the case, then I'd suggest you simply copy/paste the appropriate references from other articles that use them. You could begin with some of the sources on the parent Bosniak article. Live Forever 07:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I first noticed the Illyrian part, which is nearly absurd - and noticed that an anonymous vandal removed the tags - returning it seemed fairly reasonable. I then went pushing for it after Krusko Mortal mysteriously kept returning. Simple as that. --PaxEquilibrium 19:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, not as simple as that. What "Illyrian part" and why is it "nearly absurd"? Why didn't you add a {{Fact}} tag instead of branding the entire article? Live Forever 03:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMG, what a WP:LAME... How 'bout adding references instead of quarreling which tags are applicable? Still, no article should be based on "general knowledge", and — while I don't really dispute the stuff — the unsourced parts are generally subject to removal of any editor (WP:AGF and all that). Generally, it's preferable to have {{uncited}} at the top, than the article interspersed with {{fact}} all over. Some references could be migrated from Bosniaks article, where they were introduced, at least partially. Duja► 12:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Duja: how in the world have I "edit warred" in this article? The only contributions I ever made were creating it (i.e. simply moving the Bosniak article's history section) and then reverting Damir's move. Since then I havent't touched this article at all. In fact, I have no real intention to edit this article in the near future either; it simply doesn't interest me. I'm just pointing out the fact that for all the whining some users have done about the article's "factual accuracy" and "original research", they have not pointed out a single specific complaint. Live Forever 21:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, and where did I accuse you personally of "edit warring"? I don't want to assess the blame, but pinpoint that article flaws should be addressed in the article rather than edit warring on the tags and circularly assuming bad faith all over the talk page. I know there are some personal, erm, issues involved, but all of the previous discussion here didn't result in any improvement of the article. Duja► 10:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page title

Is everyone OK with the move to History of Bosniaks? It's simpler and in line with the main article? Duja► 12:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that title was intentional, not to be mixed with the term "Bosniacs/Bosniaks". --PaxEquilibrium 20:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. Live Forever 21:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Ivan

You have not stated your reasons. It does not matter whether somebody puts them (the tags) up before you. Have you thought about human error? What if they were wrong? I just do not understand what your problem with the article is. I highly doubt that you can find documented sources in Australia about Bosniaks considering that the first major Bosniak immigration to Australia (and I repeat major, not minor) was after the Aggression on Bosnia and Herzegovina (aka Bosnian War). I ask you to simply state what the reasons are and what proof you have for the inaccuracies. Unless you are a scholar on Bosniaks and on their history, there is no need to continue arguing about the article. (I agree that comment I made about "your party", if you understood it, was somewhat offensive, I apologize) Thanks, Vseferović 23:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it; I accept your apology. And I also apologise for sounding rude in my above comment. —KingIvanPWN3D! at the disco 02:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

indigenous

The paragraph

" It should, however, be mentioned that "Dinaric genes" are not indicative of indigenousness to the Balkan or Mediterranean areas.(Semino,Barac) This can be concluded from the fact that the Dinaric frequency is also large among, non-Mediterranean, peoples like Ukrainians and Germans what show post glacial dispersion from Balkan refuge. Furthemore it should also be noted that native Balkan peoples like the Greeks or Albanians, in most cases, have Dinaric frequencies close to zero because they are mostly descendants of neolithic settlers "

So how does one interpret this

Haplotype I is associated as the dinaric genes which conmtributed to the repopulation of europe after the LGM, and is significantly present in Bosniacs, Serbs, Croats.

SO they can either truly represent the genetic contribution of paleolithic natives that remained in the Balkans. Alternatively these genes might have merely been brought BACK into the balkans by the slavs or illyrians. THe lack of these genes in albanians and greeks obviously means that there population is composed purely of Indo-Europeans and no "natives" ?

Bosniaks didn't reappear in Bosnia

From what I was taught, Bosniaks sprang up again in Sandžak in the 1990s, not in Bosnia. Then the Muslims from Bosnia began declaring themselves as Bosniaks as more and more Muslims in Sandžak began declaring themselves as Bosniaks and the Bosniak nation was becoming more widespread. --Montenegro Interactive 09:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that makes a lot of sense from a person from an invented nationality like Montenegro. Montenegro was a city state and not a country per se. We can read up on Otto Von Bismarck, the Congress of Berlin, and secessions to Montenegro from Bosnia. Montenegro today is comprised mostly of Bosnian land (congress of Berlin) and some from Albania (Ulcinj). Even the capital of Montenegro today was a Bosnian city given to Montenegro by Von Bismarck at the Congress of Berlin. Montenegrins (the christian orthodox even if they have a separate church from the Serbian Orthodox church today) are ethnically Serbs and not a separate nation. It's absurd to think that people from Cetinje were sent to Podgorica, Bar, Boka Kotorska, Plav Gusinje, Herceg Novi, Nikshich, and other cities given to Cetinje and taken from Bosnia. The people were Serbs that settled into those areas so that the Ottoman Turks could never return by sea.

As far as Bosnia is concerned, it was called Bosnia prior to the Ottoman invasions of Sultan Fatih and Sultan Bayazit II. Herzegovina is a German name forced on Bosnia by Otto Von Bismarck in 1878. The title Herzog was given by the Austro-Hungarian empire to Stjepan V. Kosacha for refusing Ottoman forces for a full 19 years after King Tomashevich's head was cut off forcing the fall of Bobovac and all of Bosnia excluding Kosacha's area. Stjepan Kosacha was a Bosnian Duke (daughter married to King Tomashevich) who was defeated by Sultan Bayazit II in 1482 and his land became known as the Herzegovinian Sanjak.

Lika and Dalmatia were Bosnian lands as the Croats were a small people that were under Austro-Hungarian rule since the 10th century. Klishki Sanjak (Split), Krchki Sanjak (Knin), Hlivanyski Sanjak (Livno), Sarayevski Sanjak, Banya Luchki Sanjak, Yeni Pazarski Sanjak, and other Sanjaks were what the Ottoman Turks split the Bosnian Villayet into. In 1867, Austro-Hungary occupied 2/3 of Bosnia (Lika, Dalmatia, Bosnia, and 1/3 of the Herzegovinian Sanjak). Lika and Dalmatia were immediately ethnically cleansed and all the inhabitants forced into Turkey (I've seen estimates from 350,000(wikipaedia) to 6 million (documentary film by B Tanovich) ethnic Bosnians living in Turkey. The reasons for this was again so that the Ottomans wouldn't be able to return by sea to Bosnia. Bosnia's entire sealand was stolen by Austro-Hungary with the annexation. The lack of Roman Catholic churches in those areas built prior to 1867 is evidence. At the Congress of Berlin, Lika and Dalmatia remained Austro-Hungarian while the sealand south of Dubrovnik all the way to and including bar was given to the city state of Cetinje. Bosnia was allowed a small inlet that had to pass through Croatian waters in order to enter the area.

In 1907, the Hapsburg empire declared the naming of the Bosnian language Bosnian illegal. The second decree was that the Turkish (Arabic) script or Bosnian script was also declared illegal. Austro-Hungary's plan as well as Otto Von Bismarck's plan was to eliminate the Bosnian nation, have them become Croats nationaly and separate Bosnia into Bosnia and Herzegovina, even though 2/3 of the Herzegovinian Sanjak lied outside the territory, so that nobody could identify themselves as Bosnians. they would have to identify themselves as Croats. The Hegemony bit was from Hungary and revolts starting with Croatian Ban Yelachich against Hungarian Hegemony would be the demise of the Hapsburg empire.

The Bosnians (only the Bosnian muslims are ethnic Bosnians proved because prior to 1989 there were less than 20 Roman Catholic Churches (Only 2 missionary Franciscan Monasteries existed prior to A-U's occupation in 1867) and less than 50 Serbian orthodox churches in Bosnia alongside 15,000 mosques) are indeed a mixture of Slavic tribes and the Illyrian predecessor that occupied the area all the way from today's Albania to Austria. The mixture is obvious as is the mixture of Spaniards and Mexican Indian tribes (The mexican look somewhat Spanish, but a majority look more like the Indians that lived on the territory prior to the Spaniards arrival. The root of the name Bosniak is not taken from the land, rather, it is the tribal name that the Bosnians came with upon their arrival. In Poland today you have people with the last names of Horwat, Vozniak, and a nation that calls itself Sorbs. These are tribal names and not names taken upon arrival like Macedonia or names taken from the types of forestry located on its territory like Montenegro. It is well known that Slavic tribes started moving eastward (Russians), southward (Slovakia), Soutwest (Czech), South (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, and Bulgaria) from today's Poland. Slovenia and Slovakia actually have a very similar name Slovenija and Slovenska and both mean Slavia or Slavic.

The denial of the existence of the Bosnian nation, the ethnic cleansing of Austro-Hungary, the agrarian reforms of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, the agrarian reforms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and the Agrarian reforms of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have all contributed to the settling of large numbers of Serbs and Croats into Von Bismarck's Bosnia and we don't even have to talk about Lika, Dalmatia, and what they call Montenegro today.

There is even a Polish television reporter in Chicago named Steve Vozniak.

All of this information can be confirmed with the Vatican (names of Archbishops, Bishops, and Priests in Bosnia), Hapsburg archives in Vienna and Budapest, and Ottoman archives in Istanbul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.20.181 (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

I have taken the liberty of moving the article to the new title History of the Bosniaks; seeing it is only a minor change from Bosniak History I cannot foresee any potential objection.Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big issue with sources (esp. section Ottoman rule)

I decided to dig into source [6], supposedly backing up an assertion that Ottomans implemented a "prima nocta" system in the Balkans, under which local brides would have to sleep with an Ottoman before their groom. What I found was interesting:

Not only is the source bogus, it is actually a racist, neo-Nazi manifesto written by Anders Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer. Unsurprisingly, the manifesto itself does not cite any sources.

I wasn't sure what to do, so I added an [unreliable source?] tag and a tag to the top. I don't have time to sift through the rest of the article but it's clear that, at the very least, large parts of it were written with an extremely biased outlook, to put it charitably. It needs a rehaul.

209.6.47.108 (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the Anders Breivik manifesto is an unreliable source, given that the relevant comments in that document are unreferenced and that there is psychiatric opinion that the author is criminally insane. Given that there have been no objections in over a month, and there are no new references, I've deleted that paragraph. Perhaps an even bigger cut is warranted. I'll tag some of the rest as unreferenced. Klbrain (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how "Bosniaks" were just Muslim Serbs/Croats before 1993. Can we add this fact to the article, or would that trigger an artillery strike at my house?

LoL StefoKid56 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No hate though. StefoKid56 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Bosniaks&oldid=1207555811"