Talk:Bosniaks/Archive 2

message: No one did genetical resarch on Illyrians so why try to adopt history of albanians (illyrians) into this pseudo nation called bosniacs, why all this lies .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.33.242 (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary prominent anthropologists such as John J. Wilkes claim that Bosniaks are the original descendants of Indigenous Illyrian tribes and that Serbs are newcomers.83.67.73.117 20:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What I don't understand is why Serbs are so worried about what Bosniaks are and where they come from, unless they want to exterminate them and therefore it would be convenient if they didn't have significant history?83.67.73.117 20:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, calm down. We get your point. But there is something you fail to realise. Not all Bosniaks are Illyrians. Some are Slavic as well. I'm both actually, and that is very highly common within the Bosniak population as Slavs and Illyrians assimilated with each other, causing their descendants to have mixed Slavic and Illyrian backgrounds. --Prevalis 22:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Untrue because Chetniks quite famously applied to join the NAZI side, and were rejected due to not conforming to NAZI physical features requirements, and were instead exterminated along with Gypsies.
The thing is, you have to realise that the actual Slavic tribe that Serbs belong to is officially called Servian tribe (Serving cast) this was later changed to Serb, you can read up on that independently to find out why. As it happens Servs are famed for their habit of spreading around flat lands because it was easier to cultivate obviously as they are traveling tribe (Bosnia is very hilly). We also know and it is common knowledge that Illyrians were a waring people, and defended their land very jealously. Now as no book or legitimate source mentions a single battle between Servic tribe and Illyrian tribe before modern times, we can safely assume that Illyrians never mixed with Servs in significant proportions. Not to mention the fact that Bosniaks very consistently use the word "Babo" for father, which is an Italian word for father, where as Servs or Croats categorically do not. It would not take much imagination to realise that a particular word for father is passed down from real heritage and not changed easily due to peer-pressure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BosnianHolocaustSurvior (talk • contribs) 14:04, 28 October 2007 
From a linguistic point of  view, Bosenski of course is a Slavonic language. And it has nothing do to with genes if someone thinks of himself he/she is a Bosnjak/Bosenka. A discussion of genetic features of Bosniaks or of any population of any region makes not much sense in a context of discussion culture. Of course, you may discuss to what extent the genom of an average Slavonic speaking inhabitant of Bosnia in, say, 1900, was different from the genom of an average Slavonic speaking inhabitant of Bulgaria, Serbia, or Russia... but what sense would that make? When Nazis decided that Bosnjaks were better people than others due to lighter eyes and skin, this is Nazi stuff, and we must not continue this nonsense, must we? - We should better delete the topic from this article, or at least discuss it at the end, not in the beginning. Chgeiselmann 19:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, linguistic point of view, fine. But Bosniaks have learned their lesson and are now gradually changing back their language from their Russian attempted conquerers, in schools and so on. Adding to that, Bosniaks are categorically rejecting the Slavic heritage in schools and are exclusively teaching the childrean in schools that they are a Northern Illyrian tribe with Scandinavian presence, both being old European tribes and trading partners. So what you won't be able to do for long is to label Bosniaks something they don't want to be labled, for example "Slav" something they themselves are refusing in EVERY school. :-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.73.117 (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Whoever wrote the stuff in capital letters, please do not mix religous beliefs/ghost stories with genetic/tribal heritage which occured before religions. Remember religions in that region are only a few hundread years old in cases, due to difficult terrain/access. 83.67.73.117 (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Problem is, that we need to actually verify the research, ensure it comes from reliable sources, and present the information in a balanced manner. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then, if that was the case, before we make the claim that Bosniaks are "South Slavic", "we need to actually verify the research, ensure it comes from reliable sources", before we use this term. However towards the contrary argument, there is rather solid evidence from one of the few people who researched into the subject anthropologist John J. Wilkes.83.67.73.117 (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bosniacs and Illyrians???????

message: Should we move this page to "Bosniak people"? I'm intersted in what the rest of you think. The majority of other articles about ethnic groups go by the convention "(singular form) people", including both thus-far featured articles (Pashtun people and Tamil people). I would personally support such a move, but I want to make sure that everyone else would be on board as well. Live Forever 05:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move

message: This article goes on at length about the history and culture of Bosniaks, but no references are provided except for "The Peopling of Modern Bosnia-Herzegovina: Y - chromosome Haplogroups in the Three Main Ethnic Groups". Since the aforementioned article contains nothing regarding culuture or history I beleive that we need to expand out list of sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.116.78 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 8 June 2006
: *There is no sources for the term "South Slavic".
: *There is numerous sources that underline "Illyrian, Goth, Celt" heriatage.83.67.73.117 20:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Sources and References 

message: Rv. Please see talk page.
# It's very hard to say exactly what the population of Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina is, but it is definitely not anywhere near 2,159,508. The CIA factbook doesn't provide an exact number of Bosniaks but merely a percentage, and then proceeds to give us a separate population estimate. As I said earlier, there is no reason to doubt their estimate that the country is 48% Bosniak - it seems perfectly valid. Their population figures are almost certainly faulty, however, because they add in population figures for the FBiH that include hundreds-of-thousands of diasporans. The European Union population estimates don't make the same mistake and they give a figure of approximately 3,800,000. Now, as I'm assuming we all agree that 48% is a reasonable estimate for Bosniak composition of BiH population; we are merely left to choose between the EU estimate and the U.S.A. estimate. The latter implies that after genocide, ethnic cleansing, a declining birth rate, and massive emigration (war and post-war); Bosnia and Herzegovina actually gained 200,000 people. I think the choice is clear.
#Thank you whoever added the IPA pronunciation of the native word. That is a constructive improvement.
#”Slavic” or “Slavic-speaking”. Again, somebody obviously has a problem with portraying Bosniaks as Slavic so they’re trying to replace the wording with euphemisms that are easier for them to handle. The fact of the matter is that this change makes absolutely no sense; Slavs are a linguistic group, so what else does it mean to be “Slav” than to be “Slav-speaking”? The former version stays because the latter presumably intends to imply that Bosniaks aren’t “really Slav” (whatever that’s supposed to mean).
#Making “indigenous converts to Islam” link to the Bosnian church is just plain wrong. Read Malcolm’s “A Short History” or Imamovic’s “History of the Bosniak People” – the Bosnian church was a very small and insignificant presence by the time Islamicization was underway. Most converts to Islam were (at least nominally) Catholic and Orthodox.
#"their tie to the Bosnian historical region” or “their historical tie to the Bosnian-Herzegovinian region”. I’m honestly surprised you’d oppose this, but let me spell it out for you anyways. It’s important to note “Bosnian historical” region instead of “Bosnian-Herzegovinian region” because the former includes all territories historically considered part of or affiliated with Bosnia (including Herzegovina, Sandzak, etc.) whereas the latter confines this to the modern-day state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
#The issue of having a separate section on the name… I would prefer that it stays with the introductory paragraph and would hope you’d reconsider. The situation really isn’t that complicated right now. I would, however, support eventually adding a section on “Etymology” similar to the one on the Bosnian Wikipedia – provided that it’s well referenced. The etymology section could perhaps, if you guys wish, explain what it is mentioned in the introductory paragraph in more detail. Live Forever 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice, but the book was published in 1896... Duja 10:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: I feel obligated to correct these serious mis-interpretations on Noel Malcolm and John Fine among some users at wikipedia. Non of these two object that the Bosnian church was predominantly bogomil, if you for example visit Malcolm's Bosnian institute you will see that he writes that: "the Bosnian Church (with its supposedly Bogomil beliefs)". Now I'm not especially good at English I guess, but I do know that the word "supposedly" implies "the most likely" so to speak. But I do on the other hand agree with the fact that there weren't many Bogomils (adherents of the bosnian church) left when the turks came, simply because they had been practicly forced to convert to Catholicism and in a much smaller extent orthodoxism. But we also know that these "bosnian catholics" in most cases remained true to the bogomil-bosnian tradition but "officially" changed to catholicism to avoid persecution - these bogomil bosnians  - who officially recognized themselves as catholics - were the same who took Islam. So catholicism is a later part of bosnian history - bosnian church is earlier than that. First bosniaks were bogomils, then "catholics" and muslims in general. Damir Mišić
:I wouldn't however say that more than 10 people were Catholic/Orthodox/Muslim in Bosnia before Ottomans arrived. Prove me wrong.83.67.73.117 10:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Noel Malcolm's and John Fine's view on Bosnian Church

message: I've removed the POV tag. I'm sorry, but I honestly don't feel that one user pushing radical, unrecognised, fringe opinions into a perfectly fine article justifies a tag that implies the information in the article is significantly disputed - it's not. User Damir Mišić is the only one continously disputing and (I'd even say) disrupting the development of this article. Opposed to him are essentially all users who have been involved in this article over the past few weeks, including users Duja, Dado, Jadran, and others. His edits all substantially change the core information of the article to make it something completely different, and all his allegations and concerns have been thoroughly refuted on this talk page. His claims are ridiculous and should not be allowed to drag this article back. Live Forever 21:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Tag

message: As a genetic researcher I find the info added her on trivial and not realy scientific. There is no such thing and it would be wise not to alter history to fit political ammo.
:If you were a scientist, you would be able to spell stuff properly. I find that Serbs often pretend to be something they're not. This behavioral pattern is common in Romania where Serbs most probably arrived from in ancient times. 83.67.3.166 16:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetics=

message: I'm sorry if I seem a bit too inquisitive - that 5,000,000 Bosniak figure seems a bit too large. What are the sources for it? This is odd, as the figure on Croats has also jumped to 9,000,000... --PaxEquilibrium 22:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed that Bosniaks populations were expanding at lesser rate than the Gypsi and Serb(Serving caste) populations in X-Yugoslavia throughout the history, but after 1992 war, I've observed that Bosniaks (Illyrian50%/Goth+Celts[Scandinavians]) have been taking over the Gypsies and Serbs(Serving caste) by having minimum 4 childrean.83.67.73.117 10:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  5m figure? 

message: The map is errorous. It shows a Bosniak major region on the south of Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium 21:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? I know plenty of Bosniaks from Kosovo. It is a reality indeed. 83.67.73.117 19:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: The article considers anyone who registers as "Muslim by nationality" or even "Bosnian" a Bosniak. If they wanted to be nationally known as Bosniaks, then they would've declared themselves as such. Would it be appropriate if we put on Croats article [+Bunjevci, +Shokci, +Krasovani, etc...] or on Serbs article [+Gorani, +Montenegrins, +Krashovans, or God forbid +Macedonians]? Also, who came up with the 100,000 elsewhere in the world fiugure? --PaxEquilibrium 20:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More issues 

message: Mesa Selimovic, was a muslim by religion, but by ethnicity he declared himself a SERB, AND NOT A Bosniak
Many Serbs declared themselves Turks during the Ottoman occupation, but that is the language of the times and not an accurate description!  George Washington isn't called a Brit in modern times, now is he?
Mesa is a SERB as he traced his family line to pre-ottoman Serbs and opted to return to his roots! Respect a late man's passion for his nation.
I think that's because he looked like a Roma Gypsi which is what prediminantly Serbs look like, so he realised that religion isn't as important as Tribal heritage, due to Modern religions being a very new thing in the Balcans region. 83.67.3.166 16:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mesa Selimovic 

message: Image of Zlatan Ibrahimovic duly removed from the article. What purpose does it serve, anyway, apart from being a POV-edit-war magnet? Is there an image of traditional costume, sevdalinka band or similar? Duja► 09:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zlatan 

message: I'd like to make small protest about a certain point made in the article. There are several points where it is implied that "Muslims" (Muslimani) and "Bosnians" (Bosanci) are Bosniaks who just haven't realized it yet. This smells of the same kind of nationalism used by other parties in the Balkans to claim that Bosniaks are converted Serbs and Croats. As a person from Sandzak, I can testify that many of my friends still living in Priboj, Novi Pazar etc. call themselves Muslimani or Sandzaklije. There are many cases of this, and many simply don't identify with the Bosniak nation! Muslimani were recognized as a constituant people of yugoslavia. Negating their existence has no place in an encyclopedia.
Example.
"However, some of them still identify themselves as "Muslims" or "Bosnians", according to latest estimates" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.229.211.59 (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be bold and fix the article if you feel things should be addressed.  // Laughing Man 16:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting. LaugingMan responds to this suspicious post 20 minutes after it was made... maybe a sockpupet? Different IP's? Who knows. Bosniak 07:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bosniak... please stop this campaign of insinuations and fabrications agains editors you disagree with. There's a thing called Special:Watchlist, you know, and if a wikipedian is online and checks it regularly, like many do, he can respond in far less than 20 minutes. If you have something to say regarding the original post, by all means do. But vague accusations of sockpuppeting and bad faith not backed by any reasonable evidence have no place here. Duja► 12:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musliman 

message: Shouldn't this article be under "Bosniak" or "Bosniak people" to be more consistent with other ethnic/nationality articles? I favor "Bosniak" myself because it also makes linking easier. Cool Hand Luke 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. It looks like the plural form is actually the majority. Article's like Briton seem to be the outliers. Cool Hand Luke 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current title

message: Hi all. I'm currently mediating a case into which this article is involved.
Every editor can see how's going the mediation and voice his opinion here.
For a successful mediation, I need to hear every position and its arguments.
In order to keep mediation-related stuff all together, I prefer if we discuss on the mediation page rather than here.
I'm at your disposal for every question.
Happy editing,
Snowolf(talk)CONCOI -  18:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Ethnic Cleansing|'''MedCab case''']] 

message: I removed the unrelated (to the subject) medieval preferences regarding Medieval Bosnia.
P.S. Why are those that self-declare as Muslims listed on the article as well (as Bosniacs)? --PaxEquilibrium 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: There is no historical "Bosniak" people like the article pretends with pseudohistorical data and dubiosly reinterpreted facts. Todays Bosniaks are nothing else than former-yugoslav "Muslims" who took this name for political reasons during the 1990th. To claim anything else is simply an attempt to falsify history and facts. -Noirceuil 12:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: My issue with this is that later on in the same sentence, parenthesis are used to note that Kosovo is a province of Serbia, so here we have parenthesis used twice in the same sentence to imply different things. I also don't think it's really necessary, because we could simply use the appropriate/specific terms later on to avoid any confusion. Please see the article Bosnia (region) to understand why using Bosnia to mean Bosnia-Herzegovina might be misleading. Live Forever 23:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting it in brackets is the standard way to define what a word means. By doing this it means throughout the article when the word Bosnia is used it means Bosnia-Herzegovina. It can not be misleading if it is defined this way near the start unless someone does not know this convention. It is not I who introduced the word Bosnia into this text all I've done is made sure that when it is used it means Bosnia-Herzegovina and not any other meaning. To be absolutly explicit it should be ("Bosnia"), I'll make that change. Eg --Philip Baird Shearer 11:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Parenthesized "(Bosnia)"

message: I find estavisti's edit summary a bit dubious: so the thoughts/actions of his own son are unimportant, but the opinion of one contributor to a nationalist Bosnian croat website (i.e. the source used on the Mak Dizdar wiki article) sets the standard for validity? Once again, it'd be useful if editors familiarized themselves with a subject before reaching out for straws to satisfy preconcieved notions. Mak's son, Majo - a notable author in his own right - makes no qualms about his, his father's or his family's ethnic identity. He's a frequent contributor to/participant in Bosniak cultural events and organizations, and he's long worked to solidify his father's status in the Bosniak literary tradition. The wiki article you reference for denying his ethnic identity was recently reverted based on a nationalist publication from Tudjman's Croatia in 1996, where one Mr. Karihman reaches some wild conclusions about the inherent "hrvatstvo" of Dizdar's forrays into medieval Bosnian culture and other literary work. Hell, the source goes as far as naming him a "founder" of Herzeg-Bosna, the same Croat para-state that eventually ethnically cleanes his hometown and community during the wars of the 90s. Wikipedia doesn't have to give equal validity to sources, and I believe it's pretty clear which one holds precedence. Live Forever 01:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mak Dizdar

message: For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all  infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "related groups" info removed from infobox 

message: Removing this line and adding it to footnotes is a bad idea.  No one checks the footnotes.  The idea is to have it shown right away when someone is sent here after typing in "Bosniac" into the search box and wondering why they wound up at "Bosniak".  If you seek to shorten the Lead Section (which I think is a good idea), the second paragraph could probibly go elsewhere in the article.  I was thinking about how to move it but wanted to wait for some of the other issues to be settled here first.   Fanra 20:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No my motivation was to remove a hanging sentence. I do not think that a native English speaker would be supprised by seeing Bosniac spelt Bosniak and if they were there is alway the footnote. The other possibility is to add the phrase "(sometimes spelt Bosniac)" at the start of the article --Philip Baird Shearer 10:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bosniak is sometimes spelled Bosniac

message: AFAICT the OED does not have an entry for Bosniak it has an entry for Bosniac:
:1836 Penny Cycl. V. 231/1 The inhabitants of Bosnia are composed of  Bosniaks, a race of Sclavonian origin. 1848 E. LEAR Jrnl. of Landscape Painter in Albania (1851) 17 The packed Wallachians, and Bosniacs, and Jews started crampfully from the deck. 1920 Edin. Rev. Oct. 218 The ruling race absorbed large numbers of Christians, Greeks, Slavs, and later on Albanians and Bosniacs.
:Etymology: [ad. F. Bosniaque, or G. Bosniake, ad. Russ. Bosnyak.] 
To be in line with the OED should this article be moved to Bosniac? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, exactly? A google search shows 5x as many hits for the term "Bosniak" without wikipedia references. You will also find numerous organization within Bosnia that use the term with a K, so I fail to see how an outdated dictionary definition and constitutional court use are so convincing. Moving this article would also require dozens of changes throughout wikipedia to articles that use the term "Bosniak" (whether wikilinked or not), which seems a little pointless for a more commonly used and equally acceptable term. Live Forever 18:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the reference to "Cystic Renal Masses", I hope you realize that the term comes from the surname "Bosniak" of one of the people responsible for discovering it (a certain "Morton A. Bosniak"). Bosniak is a common surname in the west Balkans, stemming from the days when it simply referred to an inhabitant of Bosnia. Someone with this surname obviously immigrated abroad to the United States, had the name anglicized to Bosniak, and made some discovery relating to "Cystic Renal Masses". Now, on the basis of this, you believe we should move the article to a different spelling? I hope even you can recognize the absurdity here. Live Forever 18:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OED  

message: hi everyone,
(thought I'd open this for discussion rather than put up a 'contradictory' tag or anything)... but it seems a bit contradictory that the article starts by defining the term Bosniak in a certain way, but then describes a couple of paragraphs down that the meaning is disputed by scholars and that the article has essentially 'chosen' a certain definition.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to *begin* the article with that dispute, rather than (seemingly) taking a side on it straight away...?
Cheers Jonathanmills 12:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, I just thought the article might read a bit better if it was stated at the beginning that there is some dispute over what the term means, but then going on to say that the common one (and the one used in this article) is... etc. Not actually disputing the definition of 'Bosniak' used. Cheers Jonathanmills 12:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradiction? 

message: It is utterly ridiculous to state that Tvrtko I Kotromanić and Katarina Kosača-Kotromanić were "Bosniaks" in any way, as the House of Kotromanic was ethnically SERB and geographically BOSNIAN but certainly not Bosniak. To include them on the list of prominent 'bosniaks' is in direct odds with all common sense, with all historical facts, and also with the House of Kotromanic page on Wikipedia itself. 
Please take the Kotromanic members off this page as "Bosniaks are typically characterized by their tie to the Bosnian historical region, traditional adherence to Islam, and common culture and language", seeing as how the Kotromanic Dynasty was most certainly NOT an adherent of Islam and they did indeed speak Serbian Cyrillic and not the language of the Bosniaks, which is now called bosnian. 
--Revolucija 23:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HOUSE OF KOTROMANIC 

message: Can;t the second paragraph be simplified and made to sound smoother ?
Something like:
' Bosniacs are classified as a south Slavic people. Genetically, they are descended from the mixture of Illyrians (the inhabitants of the area since ancient times) and the Slavic tribes which migrated to the Balkans in the 5th and 6th centuries; as are all the peoples of the former Yugoslavia. Thus the main distinguishing feature between Bosniacs, Serbs and Croats is not ethnicity (or language for that matter), but religion and an often independent history. '
The places of Turkey and Switzerland must be changed in the "Regions with significant populations" section. Check external links to understand what's going on.
* Are Slavs by any chance 50% Illyrian and the rest Goths and Celts? which is precisely what the genetic evidence has unrevealed that Bosniaks are with Government based sources. Can we please stop claiming that Celts and Goths are equal to the term "South Slavic", because then we would need to change those entries too. NeutralBosnian 17:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  INTRO 

message: I moved the following from the article for discussion.  Only the English version should be in the article, and then only when sourced and rewritten so that it makes sense.  As is, I'm not even sure what the editor is trying to say:
Bosanski jezik
Isto tako više od 7 miliona Bošnjaka živi i na prostorima Turske , to su Bošnjaci kooji su za vrijeme povlačenja Turaka, zajedno sa njima otišli u svoju drugu domovinu. Turska i Bošnjačka kultura, vjera i jezik su veoma slični. Što se tiče starobošnjačkog jezika, on obiluje sa mnogo turcizama, koji su se i dan danas zadržali u kućnom jeziku bošnjačkog naroda.
Englis language
Also, seems like that more than 7 milions of Bosnian populatione lives in Turkey. That Bosnians are go with Turkeys in Turkey during the 1904-1910 , in them second country - TURKEY. Turk's and Bosniak's cultures are very seems. Turk's are get in Bosnia with new religion, coulture and language. Bosniak language are very seem's with Turkey language, i meen, old-bosnian language.--Ronz 16:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me translate it for you because your translation made no sense whatsoever:
Over 7 million Bosniaks live even in Turkey. Those were the Bosniaks, who during the time of Turkish rule, went together with the Turks to their second home. Turkish and Bosniak culture, religion and language are very similar. Concerning the Old Bosniak language, it contains many turkisms, of which were kept even today in the language used in the homes of the Bosniak people. --Montenegro Interactive 15:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks! --Ronz 18:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bosanski jezik

message: The article is written from the perspective that Bosniaks are Slavic Muslims.  If you disagree, please discuss rather than edit-warring. Thanks! --Ronz 19:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As soon as we take 100,000 Bosniaks DNA sample and conclude that they are a Slavic/Servic tribe, they sure look different to me and any western visitor. Servs appear similar to Gypsies, and Bosniaks have blonde hair mostly and blue eyes, last time I visited Bosnia. So the most educated approach would be not to mention the word "Slavic" untill concrete genetic test brings about such evidence, am I right? Or are we going to go against recognised professional methods of reaching conclusions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BosnianHolocaustSurvior (talk • contribs) 01:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: One is not being offensive at all about "the Gypsi appearance" so there's nothing racist there. One is just providing observation value to the subject. One might say that Serbs do not look like Afghans which is a valid scientific and factual observation, which can be used to prove that Serb cultural heritage is unlikely to be of Afghan origin.83.67.73.117 10:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slavic Muslims

message: I've noticed several repeated attempts at conflating Bosnian historical figures with Bosniak Muslims. Steccak tomb stones relate to Bosnian history and the folklore of all three peoples, not just Bosniaks. Likewise, King Tvrtko was a Christian monarch. If you wish to say that Bosnian history only pertains to modern Muslim Bosniaks, then come right out and say it. Otherwise, stop tampering with history.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.39.246 (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bosniaks vs. Bosnians

message: I'm tired with repeated number inflation in infoboxes, not only for Bosniaks, but for other peoples as well. I'm reverting to the old version of the infobox, which was referenced from at least semi-proper sources (no, I'm not checking the refs yet again).
As for Bosniaks in Turkey, we've been here numerous times before: yes, there were large waves of emigration, especially in 1878-1925. No, most people of their origin cannot be counted as Bosniaks anymore; few of them speak the language, not all are even aware of their origin, and Turkish census apparently doesn't count them as such. At best, they're "Turks of Bosnian origin" now. It is duly noted in the text, still uncited. Take it out of infobox please. Duja► 08:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number inflation, yet again 

message: This is not the place for such discussions. There are many discussion boards and other such forums on the internet to engage such topics. Article talk pages are for discussing the article and related issues, not for a general forum-style discussion of the subject and related topics. Vassyana (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we've no choice then but to archive this section.  Thanks for taking the time to look into this! --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: Hey. I'm not giving a third opinion, but I'm adding some text that was added to the 3O page. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose this section be immediately archived per TALK.  This is not a forum for such disputes and NeutralBosnian has already brought this up in four other forums, not including Third opinion. --Ronz 19:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not the purpose of this forum.  See WP:TALK. --Ronz (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: I am also for this to be kept protected untill everybody calms down, and becomes aware that not only violence and Slavophile agenda is valid. Please try to be neutral and the perspective should be from Bosniak perspective and not from Slavophile because Serb and Russian media claim that Serb soldiers were the victims in Srebrenica which is insane to most. http://www.serbianna.com/features/srebrenica/ 83.67.73.117 (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors have repeatedly made such accusations.  If you could explain in detail, I'm more than willing to help put to end to any problems.  Note that I'm editing this article solely to help end such disputes. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Violence and agendas?