Talk:Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina

message: I fail to see the purpose of the sections "The Ottoman" and "Bosnian war" in their current form. Much information there is merely duplicated from more pertinent articles. --Joy [shallot] 08:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do see a relevance. The section is short and gives a brief summary of how Islam reached Bosnia. I don't see a need to link to a long article on Ottoman rule in Balkans. A brief summary is needed OneGuy 18:19, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't need to link a general Ottoman page, but you should link History of Bosnia and Herzegovina rather than duplicate everything in less detail, and a lot of it may be considered controversial... --Joy [shallot] 20:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can edit whatever you want and I might edit from there (if I disagree) :) OneGuy 00:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  general history content in sections 

message: *Hi, I think it would be a good thing if somebody can add to this article two things :
1) A table showing the weight of muslims in Bosnia thru the period we are dealing with
2) To add some informations about how slaves converted to islam in Bosnia.
Thanks
:1) "Weight"?
:2) Slavery was historically rather insignificant in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
:
:Asim Led 04:28, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yeah, that makes more sense. And maybe by weight he means percentage of population? I'll add something about that tonight. Asim Led 18:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions 

message: The photos  (Kingfahdsar.JPG & Vogoscamosque1.JPG) are copy written work from a photographer from Sarajevo. Zec claimed the work to be his which is a violation of copyright. In the future, please follow the rules. I will try to obtain the proper consent from the photographer in regards to the given photos.
The images ZEC stole and wrongfully claimed as 'his' were stolen from http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/39206130/ as well as from the photographers Flickr accounts on http://flickr.com/photos/mizi/sets/72157594309520240/ where both of the images can clearly be seen, as well as their copyright tag. The color levels are identical, as well as the hidden watermark that is within the image file which can be viewed by water-mark unmasker in Photoshop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redcardiff (talk • contribs) 
:I tagged them as . It seems that all  does is stealing images from other sites. Duja► 08:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copywritten images stolen and wrongfully claimed by user ZEC 

message: About me: I am an English person and I've visited Bosnia many times, as I have a girlfriend there who survived the Holocaust and or Genocide there, and as a child she barely escaped the VERY FAMOUS Death camps shown on the Western Media...
I have a problem with the usage of the word "Slav" to describe Bosnians or Bosniaks, because it very simply suggests that one of three Illyrian tribes in Anciant Illyria simply all dropped dead one day.
I suggest before we use the word "Slav" to describe Bosniaks, we first find historical evidence of disappearance of the Illyrian people of Bosona or Bosnia.
Fair enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.3.166  (talk • contribs) 13:13, 28 October 2007  
:Absolutely not. Bosniaks are Slavs, whether you like it or not. This is 100% factually true, and only those who operate on the very fringes of science try to suggest that Bosniaks are anything other than Slavs. Please don't try to insert any ridiculous pseudo-historical "facts" about Bosniaks being "100% Illyrian/Aryan/Blonde-haired blue eyed Scandinavians but we just speak Slavic language" because it is complete rubbish. There are a lot of people who believe many of the lies and half truths presented on Wikipedia, but no one in his right mind would ever believe anything so blatantly erroneous. 
P.S - it's very obvious that you are not an Englishman.
Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slav or Serv Slavic tribe. 

message: As this article's subject is "Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina", I deemed the addition of Shia Muslims to be edifying, despite their only constituting around a 3%(?) minority.
Considering how little of this article is sourced, and the lack of explanation as to why Sunni over Shia, there is nowhere in the body to elaborate on which forms of Islam is practised. Stating 'predominantly Sunni Muslims' begs the question of what other forms of Islam could be practised in the country.
Unless you're willing to expand on the history of Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina, User:Praxis Icosahedron, I see value in its remaining. I would also ask that, if you wish to query my judgement, you bring it to the talk page rather than leave WP:UNCIVIL edit summaries decrying my 'defence' of retaining Shia. If I weren't level headed, I might just construe that as a personal attack. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, what is so difficult to comprehend with "predominantly"? No ethnic group is the world is perfectly homogeneous with regard to religious structure. Bosniaks are an ethnic group. Understand? And as an ethnic group, not every member of that group will be a devout Sunni Muslim. Some will be atheists, agnostics and etc. Not all Russians profess Orthodoxy and not all Swedes profess protestantism. I'm really tying to make this understandable for you. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of disputing the article please try to actually read it first. Muslims make up 40% of the Bosnian population while Bosniaks make up 48%. Sourced in the article. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

text: I have read the article more than once. Per your comparisons, please see Islam in Russia. As noted in my last revert, if you are stressing numbers of Muslims, then Sunni is equally as irrelevant. Discussion of secularism and other issues you've mentioned are not developed in this article as it stands, therefore it doesn't reflect the points you are trying to explain to me. Until such a time as the article is broken down into practising, irreligious and other relevant details I am happy to compromise with you by referring to Muslims and Islam, but not denominations. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject of the article 

message: , please qualify what "a long history" actually means when it is immediately followed by "having been introduced to the local population in the 15th and 16th centuries". The reader can make their own judgement as to whether it is a long or relatively short period of time without your qualifying it on their behalf. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. The fact that you feel that 'style' is being compromised is your own POV. There's nothing encyclopaedic about "a long history", which is also WP:POV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear User:Iryna Harpy, looks like you have taken the wrong meaning of the term historic or long history. Historic does not mean how many centuries have passed after a particular event. It depends upon the people under consideration. Every one knows that Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina is almost entirely associated with Bosniaks. It was the introduction of Sunni Islam after Ottoman conquest that began the synthesis of bosniak identity. That's why Bosniak identity today is almost synonymous with not only Islam but Sunni Islam just as Orthodoxy for Serbs and Catholicism for Croats. For bosniaks there is no comparison between Sunni Islam and Ahmadiyya movement because Sunni Islam is the part of their culture since the formation of their ethnic identity and Ahmadiyya movement is merely just a new addition. Therefore, in your terms Sunni Islam may not be of historic significance for Bosnia as it was introduced only in 16th century, but its of historic significance for bosniaks. Furthermore, you need reliable sources that state that ahmadiyya movement has a following among bosniaks. Having an ahmadi mosque does not simply mean that ahmadis are present among bosniaks. It may be operated by foreign nationals or some Roma or Serbs are ahmadis.Septate (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am not mistaken. I am reading the sentence as it stands for the lead of this article. It is meaningless in the context. Any meaning you have instilled it with is your own POV. If it is to read as being historic in terms of everything you've noted above, it needs to be written clearly as denoting that which you have written above. What that means is it is up to you to present sources and elaborate on this 'meaning' in the body of the article. Currently, I could be predisposed to using 'major impact', 'a major impact on the Bosniaks' in this context. The article, however, is not entitled Bosniaks because that article already exists and is linked in the second paragraph of the lead. I'm not certain as to how many times I'm going to have to repeat it, but the article is entitled "Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina", not "Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina" or "Predominant form of Islam practised in Bosnia and Herzegovina". In effect, that means it is not an advocacy piece for Sunni Islam or Bosniaks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: May I just add that Sunni Islam is a contributor to the ethnogenesis of Bosniaks (as religion is for any ethnic group) but far from the sole factor in action. Bosnia and Herzegovina constitutes a distinct entity with its own history and identity. As such, medieval Bosnia was not some "second" Catholic-"Croat" or Orthodox-"Serb" kingdom. It had its own religious landscape with the Bosnian Church and the population called themselves Bošnjani. What is true, however, is that Bosnians of Muslim and Christian backgrounds were split along religious lines into "Bosniaks", "Bosnian Serbs", and "Bosnian Croats" in the 19th century. Before this "Bosniak" was a name largely applied to the entire population of Bosnia who were thus one people. Regarding the lead, I personally think both "longstanding" and "rich" are warranted since that is what Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina historically is. It is not "peacocking", but entirely factual. By the early 1600s, approximately two thirds of the native population were Muslim. There are thousands of mosques in Bosnia, and so forth. If 500 years of this is not "rich" and "longstanding" I do not know what is. I am also struggling to grip Iryna Harpy's agenda. Frankly, I have not encountered Wikipedia bureaucracy of the sort yet. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much for the tutorial on the proud heritage of the Bosniaks and why we are so much more important than the subject of the article lesson, Praxis Icosahedron. Let me guess: you're a Sunni Muslim Bosniak. Are you capable of being neutral about the subject of Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina: it doesn't appear that you are. You are welcome to elaborate on this great heritage in the Bosniaks or the Islamization of Bosnia and Herzegovina article (provided you have the RS). Frankly, I'm struggling to come to grips with your WP:NOTGETTINGIT approach to a very simple issue: is this article about Sunni Muslim Bosniaks, or is it about "Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina". You seem ill equipped to be able to differentiate between the two subjects. Between you and Septate going WP:OFFTOPIC, the changes to the content of this article are becoming WP:TEDIOUS. Please desist from the disingenuous befuddlement over Wikipedia bureaucracy as I do have the capacity to refer to your talk page and note that you have had encounters of an unfavourable kind here before. If you want to start with WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, we can always take it up in a more formal venue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not be having any more discussions with you, and that's period. You oughta be glad that I (still) find your attack unworthy of a case filing. Making the matter personal by for some reason permitting yourself the liberty of highly inappropriate and provocative "guesses" that clearly breach WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH, and WP:PERSONAL is out of place on so many levels. And you are accusing me of battleground mentality? That is so absurd, and then you proceed to threaten me with "formal venues". Your ways are so very incredibly rude. Especially coming from what appears to be an established user. It is not your business to guess anything about me or who I am as a person, do you understand that? As far as you are concerned I'm an eskimo who believes in Greek mythology. You need to learn boundaries, honestly. You're always welcome to stalk my page if you like. I'm flattered. Just beware of WP:WIKISTALKING. Like I said, I will not be discussing with a person who so deliberately creates an oppressive personal environment. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 01:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long is a piece of string? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* Bugojno3.JPG (discussion)
*  ()
* King Fahd Mosque Sarajevo (1).JPG (discussion)
*  ()
*  (discussion)
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* King Fahd Mosque Sarajevo (1).JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion