Talk:History of the Bosniaks

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: No, not as simple as that. What "Illyrian part" and why is it "nearly absurd"? Why didn't you add a  tag instead of branding the entire article? Live Forever 03:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ivane... 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think that title was intentional, not to be mixed with the term "Bosniacs/Bosniaks". --PaxEquilibrium 20:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do. Live Forever 21:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page title 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  For Ivan 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bosniaks didn't reappear in Bosnia 

message: 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)
thread_title: Renaming

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Big issue with sources (esp. section Ottoman rule) 

message: LoL StefoKid56 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No hate though. StefoKid56 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  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?