Talk:Damat Ibrahim Pasha

message: *1601 "Damad Ibrahim Pasha" -Llc 5 results
*1601 "Damat Ibrahim Pasha" -Llc 1 result
Takabeg (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: Should Ottoman statesmen of Bosnia (Sanjak of Bosnia, Bosnia Eyalet) be called "Bosniaks" (ethnicity) or "Ottoman Bosnian (Muslims)"? Edit-war diff.--Zoupan 04:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the Ottoman Empire (and Ottoman Bosnia) and Yugoslavia are not one and the same; the nomenclature and periodization distinguishes Ottoman Bosnian Muslims (Muslim Millet) with Bosniaks (modern ethnic group and nation). This is not denying the Bosniaks of an identity. Note:--Zoupan 08:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  moved :Category:Ottoman Bosnian Muslims to :Category:Ottoman Bosniaks, without a discussion.--Zoupan 09:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Being an outsider, I want to share an interesting observation which puzzled me. During the civil war, the western press classified the factions as Serb, Croat and Muslim. But this is not logical. While first two are classified on ethnicity basis, the last is classified on religion basis. I see some similarity with the discussion above.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

text: To avoid future edit wars and conflicts about this issue it might be a good idea to expand wikipedia guidelines with something like: "People of Balkans (why only Balkans?) did not have a sense of ethnic identity until XY century (19th, 20th or 21st century, depending on the case), so it is not allowed to attribute any ethnic identity to pre-XY century Balkan people." What do you think ?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is really no reason to single out South Slavs. I believe the matter is already well-covered by existing guidelines and policies. You have mentioned WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, for example. Serious historians/biographers would never entertain such notions anyway, so I suppose WP:RS would count as well. Surtsicna (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you believe such thing? The existing guidelines and policies, including those we mentioned, do not even mention pre-xyz century ethnic identity of people. WP:OPENPARAGRAPH deals only with opening paragraph while WP:RS deals with reliability of the sources. Why wouldn't some explicit policy/guideline expansion clarify this? Are you  concerned it would be hard to gain consensus for such guideline amendment? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is that garnering consensus for something so trivial would turn into an epic hassle. Since (I dare say) there is no reliable source confirming how Damat Ibrahim Pasha identified in terms of ethnicity (and ethnicity being a social construct rather than a biological fact), WP:V already covers the exclusion of such nonsense. Surtsicna (talk)
*Support Bosniak — agree that these are one and the same. The article about Bosniaks clearly identifies them as Muslim and as for the time period, I don't see how "Bosniak" is "newly established" or too "modern" of an ethnic group to apply to Ottomans. Unless the Bosniak article is wrong; the term goes back to the 1400s. Ethnic groups don't develop overnight; in anthropology, the term "modern ethnic group" seems to refer to at minimum 500 years-1,000 years (as opposed to the term "ancient ethnic group"). —МандичкаYO 😜 02:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

text: @"Ethnic groups don't develop overnight" – Bosniak ethnicity is derived from their Ottoman Bosnian Muslim heritage. Note nomenclature and periodization. :Category:Ottoman Bosnian Muslims is under Bosniak history, Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ottoman period in the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslims, Ottoman people by ethnic or national origin – instead of using the first four categories in biographies there is one. Also note Devşirme and Rum Millet.--Zoupan 22:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomenclature