Talk:Anti-Bosniak sentiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on March 28, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] AfD Nomination

I have nominated this article for deletion. Refer to link provided. Asterion 18:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Bosniak sentiment closed as keep. `'mikka (t)

[edit] "Citation Needed" markers

I took off the first "Citation needed" (hereafter C.N.) because the sentence in question is just a straight-forward definition. I consider it a simple statement of fact, and don't think it needs a source. I'm letting the C.N. mark following the sentence about tracing the origins stand for the moment, but plan on removing it once I provide properly referenced information for section 1.1 [Early Roots (Until 1878)]. As for the last C.N., I think that sentence just needs to be rephrased and tweaked until there's nothing controversial in it. Live Forever 20:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed the other two "Citation needed" markers. There is nothing that needs to be referenced there. Does anybody disagree with the statement that "a deliberate misuse may be considered insulting (especially by secular Bosniaks)"? As for the second one under the "Derogatory terms" section, that's fact too - how else do you interpert grafiti calling for Turks to "return" to Asia? Live Forever 21:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I completely disagree. Muslim is not derrogatory. It has never been. Other thing is replacing the Titoist term for "Bosniak" for nationalist reasons (i.e. "Bosnia for the Bosniaks"). It is perfectly understandable why Bosnian Croats or Bosnian Serbs do indeed prefer Muslimani over Bosniak. This does not not amount as "Anti-Bosniak". Asterion 23:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into the irrelevent conspiracy theories about the Bosniak national awakening. What I am asking is for you to carefully read the disputed sentence again: do you disagree that secular Bosniaks may interpert the deliberate misuse of an archaic religious-based name for their ethnicity as insulting? The article doesn't say that it is insulting (in fact, it states that it is not inherently so), merely that some Bosniaks (especially secular ones) may interpert it that way. Completely objectively, do you really think this demands a reference? And if so, what kind of reference do you have in mind? Live Forever 01:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The point is that just because someone prefers to use the word the grew up with to describe their neighbour (Muslim in a national sense), it does not make it an insult. There are many people in BiH who are not happy with the Bosniak neologism. Can your provide any reasonable explanation on why using Muslim is derrogatory or insulting? With all due respect, this is a paper thin argument. And what about the opposite situation? ( I can't think of Emir Kusturica going by the label of Bosniak...) Asterion 20:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
That's where the words "deliberate misuse" come in. When someone purposely insists on the term "Muslims" to denote someone who they know specifically identifies him or herself as a Bosniak, for instance, that person may find it insulting. Why? Because everybody has the right to call themselves as they wish, and for someone to knowingly ignore this and use the term "Muslim" to make some personal political point is just another form of denying Bosniaks their right to self-identity. This isn't a paper thin argument: its basic human rights. A comparison can be made to how many Roma view the term "Gypsy" as pejorative: it deserves to be mentioned. Live Forever 23:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little question

I voted Neutral-Keep on this article's entry. I like the article, but it gives a total of 15 Google search results. Although the article is good as it represents yet another Anti-national sentiment (which is present against every nation), the low google search renders it a candidate for speedy delete, I am afraid... --HolyRomanEmperor 20:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I got only 5 hits. Doctor Robotnik 02:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This article differs from all other anti-ethnic sentiments (anti-semitism, lusophobia, serbophobia, russophobia, etc) by the fact that all of them cite examples of discrimination/hatred by a diverse number of nations/ethnicities, whereas every example of anti-Bosniak sentiment is attributed to Serbs. If you want to claim anti-Bosniak sentiment is widespread enough to deserve its own article on Wikipedia, then you must provide examples of anti-Bosnaik sentiment by others than Serbs. C'mon, we Chetniks can't be the only ones who hate you. Doctor Robotnik 02:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not true: in the section "The West", the article also mentions xenophobic expressions against Bosniaks recorded in Greece. There's no alterior reason why there are only mentions of Serb examples.. the four that came up were just the first ones I could think of and/or find solid references to. If you have other examples, feel free to put them in there - that's the spirit of wikipedia. Live Forever 04:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I am kind of puzzled here... Is Greece not in the Balkans? Why creating a new header? If you want to differentiate between both subentries, what about Former Yugoslavia (for your current entry titles The Balkans) and Other countries (for The West)? Regarding the intro text, you wrote "Anti-Bosniak sentiment is a view of suspicion, resentment, or hostility towards the Bosniak people". My problem here is that the definition is not sourced or validated by cross-reference and still sounds as a neologism. Adding the word "alleged" in front of view, would make the text unclear but I am unable to find any suitable alternative. Regards, Asterion 19:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You have a point about Greece. I'm changing it into "West Balkans" and "The West", so hopefully that'll make things a bit more clear. As for your second concern, the whole point is that its not a definition of the word: we are not defining "Anti-Bosniak" sentiment - in fact, we're doing the opposite in a way. We're writing an article about the "view of suspicion, resentment, or hostility towards the Bosniak people" and giving it a simple descriptive title based on similar articles. Live Forever 04:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Some will understand what this means, some wont --Milan Tešovic 02:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. Could you please clarify? Live Forever 02:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a point in putting the picture with the graffiti sign when it says "Death Turks"? This is Anti-Bosniak sentiment, not Anti-Turkish sentiment. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as "Turks" in the Balkans is used as a derogatory term for Bosniaks: yes. Live Forever 04:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The situation

I'd like to congratulate the maker of this article for keeping it cool and commend the article itself.

However, I'd like to warn Contributors about the thin line they're walking on the Early roots bit. I mean, what if a Muslim from Slavonia was called Mohammad Horthy. And then, Peter II's well-known anti-Islamism when he said the sentence was only refering to the political strength of the Ottoman Empire in a Serbian state - Montenegro that's, really and factually, infesting and grappling the country. Now, Peter I conducted the famous invastigations of Turks where plenty of Ottoman Muslims where executed in fear of beig Ottoman officials, which decreased the presence of Islam in the country. When the Muslims rule an Orthodox country and oppress it, it's natural to expect resistence...

So, could we put all Moslem Slavs under this category? We could continue accross to Kosovo, where mistakingly, the Goranci, a Moslem Serb group, are considered Bosniaks. Should we continue to the Macedonian Torbesh or the Bulgarian Pomaks? Note that the people who are currently Muslims by nationality declared (at leasts that's in Serbia and Montenegro), don't declare their language Bosnian, but Serbian, rather (those in Croatia Croatian). It is to this fact that they consider themselves Moslem Serbs and Croats; and those who have fled to Croatia were even victims of Serbian-conducted atrocities.

I'm not objectict anything currently, but I'm warning the contributors to tread carefully when reffering to this period of History (and before). Sincerely, --HolyRomanEmperor 14:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I've just discovered these articles: Muslim Bulgarians and Macedonian Muslims. There's also Greek Muslim minority.
There should be a perhaps seperate article refering to hatred towards all Slavic Muslims made from that history part. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


I don't understand your comments regarding Njegos' statements considering that the pogrom occured on the territory of old Montenegro, which I believe was independent of the Ottomans at the time. As for your proposal about merging the articles, I think thats just clouding the issue. If there has been persecution and racism towards Slavic Muslims of other ethnic heritages, then it can be incorporated into the existing articles about those groups. This article refers specifically to the sentiment that certain people have exclusively to the Bosniaks, and not any other slavic Muslims. The issue is just a little confusing right now since in the early roots section I find it incorrect to exclusively use the term "Bosniaks" seeing as nationalism was a relatively new phenomenon at the time - particularly for the Bosniaks themselves. Live Forever 19:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


Notice how there isn't a page about the harassement serbs/croats have gotten from bosniaks? Wikipedia is very biased in it's judjements. Even overseas here in Canada the serb and bosniak communities have some "bad blood" with eachother. The two are much more simular than different from eachother, so why are they fighting? - Lazar

Not true. See: Croatophobia, and Serbophobia. Live Forever 03:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is getting ridiculous

The article blames the atrocities to the Croatian Muslims (in the Frontier) as a result of Serbophobia; especially making notes for Lika and Slavonia??? Also, the citation of Njegos, which is refering to the Ottoman occupation of Montenegro is considered anti-Bosniak. Also the mass-scale ethnic cleansing of Turks as a gesture of Serbia's rebellion from the Ottoman Empire is here.

Then there's In 1852 some 800 Bosniaks were forcibly converted to Christianity in Montenegro, while the 1860s saw the complete expulsion of the Bosniak population from Užice and Soko. Even if this is sourced (and it's not), those couldn't possibly (in any way) be Bosniaks (see the article, please). The same is with the further Serb rebellions against the Ottoman rule.

I suggest renaming the article to Islamo-pophobia or reworking it and renaming it to "Serbian violence and nationalism". --HRE 13:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This is quite good name for article. Personaly, this article should be talking about anti sentiment after 1992... as it is. Especialy after the war, signs, threats, Banja Luka incident and many more which is ulitmate proof. But article itself isn't ridiculous, no need for any changing the name of it. We can incorporate that Islamo-phobia or Serbian violence into this article. --HarisM 18:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
"Serbophobia" isn't mentioned once in the article nor are Serbs in any way implicated in the first two incidents you mentioned, so I don't see how you can possibly say the articles 'blames them on it'. Your comment about Njegos is also entirely unfounded; his poetry quite clearly and explicitely refers to the slaughter of Muslims in the independent part of Montenegro, and thus has nothing to do with the Ottoman "occupation". Asides from the eyebrow-raising description of ethnic cleansing as a "gesture", your next point also lacks a factual foundation, as the "mass-scale ethnic cleansing" was not of Turks but Slavic Muslims. In your next sentence you make yet another mistake, claiming that a statement in the article is not sourced when it obviously is. Finally, I'm firlmy opposed to renaming this article "Islamo-pophobia" (if for grammatical reasons alone), while renaming it "Serbian violence and nationalism" would simply be - for the lack of a better word - racist. Live Forever 23:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
My point wasn't that the article's anti-Serb orientated (it's not); it's whether this has anything to do with hatred towards Bosniaks. Many of those Muslims (who had nothing to do with Bosnia) were tortured/killed/etc. on a religious fanatical belief; because they were Muslims, not on a national basis (they even weren't Bosniaks). So, the subject appears to be wrong. I suggest "Slavic Islamophobia" as a possible solution. --PaxEquilibrium 21:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Ethnic cleansing was indeed a gesture - what do you want from me - to deny it? Why did you place "" in the word 'occupation'? The majority of the Christian population resented the Muslims (by faith) and/or Turks (by nationality - regardless of ethnic origin) simply because they were occupators in a free land. They, as a minority, constantly harrassed the civil Christian majority. The same was as with the German civil population colaborating during the Axis occupation of Europe in most of Eastern Europe. The "purge" was supposed to be a mass removal of the the infidel occupators, the traitors of the land; considering that Muslims were always a small minority in Montenegro, this shouldn't be overemphasized. You must also take into granted the mentality of that world's thinking (and cannot be compared to the modern democratic world), The Christian population of Montenegro viewed Muslims as infidels who came from afar with the sole purpose to impose rule and totally anihalate/destroy the very existence of their civilization; imposters who are pure evil; the minority Muslims saw the Christians as the infidel lower-classed population; those who accept Allah's hand being good and those who don't being rebellious, arrogant slaves, the inferior population who is destined to die-out eventually.
It is thus that; even more in that Age of National Awakening, that Njegos' words should not be misinterpreted in that way. And lastly, but not leastly - Njegos meant absolutly nothing against the Bosniaks on that occasion. --PaxEquilibrium 21:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I also think it's quite stretched to extend the origins of the phenomenon into the past in this manner. I don't have a problem with extending "Bosniak" notation into the past where applicable, but I think mentioning Bosniaks in the context of 19th century Serbia and Montenegro is a bit too much of a stretch and even OR—many of those were Turks or Islamized Slavs. "Further cases of Anti-Bosniakism would occur throughout the area during the remainder of the 19th century" is a clear POV; if anything, it was anti-Islamism. Those events should be put into the historical context of Serbian and Montenegrin fight with the Ottoman Empire, local Muslim population being a "collateral damage" (pretty much similar to 1945 expulsion of Banat Germans). I don't think that that info belongs to the article, especially not so phrased. This article should focus on post-1991 events, with short historic intro and mentioning of events esp. regarding Bosniak emigration to Turkey 1878-1920s and WW2 in 1941-1945. Duja 11:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


PaxEquilibrium, your argument has so many gaping holes and horrificaly POV statements I'm honestly not sure where to begin. First and foremost, I feel I should address the complaints shared by both you and Duja. The sections prior to 1992 are absolutely necessary and the fact that you're trying to present this as some post-war phenomenon is, to be blunt, laughable. For instance, entire books have been written about the rise in anti-Muslim feelings (with a "capital M", in case "Bosniak" offends you too much) among Serbs in the former Yugoslavia, drummed up by political elites, the academia, and the Serbian religious establishment. It was exactly this rise in popular perception of "Muslims" as backwards, sinister, and foreign, that allowed for the eventual genocide (or simply the systematic killing of c. 40,000 civilians; take your pick) of the following decade. Pretending that the events of the 90s, or even the 80s, came out of nowhere is inane. The roots of the glorifying of the '92 take-over of Bijeljina extend to the 19th century, and this aritlce simply would not be complete if it didn't show that. Arguing that the massacres of Herzegovinian "Muslims" following World War I, for instance, were simply outbursts of "Anti-Islamic" feelings is, to be blunt, bullshit. This was a very local and specific sense of hate and prejudice that applied and developed in relation to a local and specific type of Muslims. Criticsm of Islam, of Islamic fundementalism and such did not develop among Serbs out of some general hate or distaste for Islamic civlization, but out of a hate and distaste towards Bosniak-Muslims and Bosniak-Muslim culture. Thus, we cannot say that anti-Bosniak incidents were merely "collateral damage" of anti-Islamic sentiment, but rather the other way around: anti-Islamic sentiment among Serbs was "collateral damage" from a more direct and focused prejudice against Bosniak-Muslims. Of course the sections prior to periods of notable Bosniak nationalization (i.e. times when "Muslims" had a fairly solid idea of who they were as a community... post-1878, let's say) are not meant to illustrate concrete examples of hatred against the Bosniak nation, but incidents that reflect the roots and historical origins of later hatred directed precisely at the "Bosniak nation". And squabbling over the name is ridiculous. I purposely shifted between using "Muslims" and "Bosniaks" so as to reflect that the national awakening had not yet occured. However, ethnic identity is not based on genetics or even geography. Call it "Bosniak", call it "Muslim", call it what you will: the Muslim Slavs of Uzice belonged to the same ethnic community as the Muslim Slavs or Visegrad, and a 20 kilometer distance between the two doesn't change it. The sense of hate that motivated massacres of Muslim Slavs on the territory of present-day Serbia and Montenegro (the sense of hate that was quite distinguishable from the hate towards Turks, Gypsies, and non-Slavic Muslims there) can hardly be seperated from the Muslim Slavs in present-day Bosnia-Herzegovina, and as such very much deserves to be mentioned in an article on "resentment [and] hostility" towards the modern-day Bosniak nation. If you're opposed to the precise terms used, I'm a reasonable guy and I'm sure we can come up on language agreeable to all. Taking it all out, however, is wrong. Live Forever 22:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

p.s. The other points brought up, such as PaxEquilibriums heavily distorted account of the Ottoman "occupation" (and the Caliphate "occupied" Israel... give me a break), I will address some other time. Live Forever 22:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should I find anything offendive in "Bosniak"? I do however find offendive calling those Bosniaks those who're not, like that map on Bosniaks does showing the south of Kosovo populated by Bosniaks, or going into the past and "nationally adopting" people's sufferings. Many Serbs have tried to do that (and continue trying), openly calling Gorans, Bunyevs, Krashevans and even Janyevs, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Muslims (among them Bosniaks) or even going afar to claim a portion of the Croat population or "Albanized Serbs"; overemphasizing the suffers of those people their own. This is what seems to be happening here. Also, please understand; modern-day "Bosniak" is not synonymous with "Muslim by nationality" from Communist Yugoslavia.

Please be maintain a cool-leveled amount of civility (refering to you usage of "bullshit" and etc.)

Such beliefs didn't come out of nowhere, ofcourse. But several things you have to understand. Bosniaks and other Muslims accross former Yugoslavia (regardless of ethnic origin) were mainly hated because of their religion. Ratko Mladic, the one who committed the Srebrenica massacre in 1995, slaughtering thousands of Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), himself stated even on other occasions of captures of Bosnian sites that he did that "for the Serbian people, as a revenge for the Battle of Kossovo". The general view among Christian fanaticals is that the Bosnian Muslims are those who "sadly" remained and survived, unlike elsewhere in Europe; as horrific as truthful that is. I myself descend from a highly conservative (read: primitive) background, so I can talk about these things with first-hand knowledge. Hatred towards Bosniaks as a nation is perhaps being created nowdays - as the majority of Bosniaks are hated because of their religious beliefs, i. e. because they are Muslims (and that was the majority of the war's opinion). The sole fact that many Slavic Muslims in the neighbouring areas adopted a Bosniak nationality is the sole proof of their solidarization, because they were mistreated, subject to religious discrimination etc. Many people (openly) hated Emir Kusturica or Fahreta Jahic; the two most famous modern (former) Moslem Serbs, which made them convert their religion. It is of no doubt that this has to do not solely with their national feeling, but religious discrimination towards them in Serbia and Montenegro. I repeat, even today, Bosniaks are hated because they are Muslims mostly, and not because of their national affilation, since all those who share an Anti-Bosniak sentiment - even do not recognize the existence of a Bosniak ethnic group (as evidently shown in this article). P. S. Why is there a little anti-Bosniak feeling in Greece? Because Bosniaks are Muslims.

Are you disputing the fact that the Ottomans occupied Montenegro? Why? The Caliphate's occupation of Israel... well, that word cannot be used - since Palestine was conquered and never liberated itself from the Caliphate (unlike Montenegro, which did free itself); the Jews faced exermination, while Slavs (back then "Serbs") in Montenegro were always at strong - if a population is destroyed, it's no longer occupation. Just as Croatia isn't occupying RSK, France wasn't occupying the Huguenot Republic after the capture of La Rochel (destruction), nor was the Ottoman Empire occupying Asia Minor after the elimination of its Christian elements. --PaxEquilibrium 16:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge or Move this article to Bosniakophobia

Before it got listed on wikipedia, the termm Serbopbobia returned only 2 matches at Google. Then, as a result of thousands of scrapper pages, now the same term returns thousands of matches, all wikipedia's content used on other pages.

I suggest we Merge or Move (Rename) this article to Bosniakophobia.

I will be checking for your input. Thanks. Bosniak 22:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unanswered questions

I have written a lot of questions, and no one answered them. This article was deleted, and so were thus, my questions. One of them were the arguments that this article deals in great part with Islamophobia, rather than an anti-bosniac sentiment. --PaxEquilibrium 18:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti Bosniak sentiment is fact, and present in Bosnia and nerby countries. I live here - I know. --HarisM 02:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have two thoughts on this article: 1) All the examples cited seem to indicate sentiment against the Bosniaks because of their religion rather than their ethnic affiliation, so they are really examples of Islamophobia, nothing more. In fact it could be said that "anti-Bosniak sentiment" is nothing more than a different name for Islamophobia, in which case the two articles should be merged. 2) In all the examples of anti-Bosniak sentiment, the perpetrators are always Serbs. So this is clearly not in the same category as things like anti-Semitism or Slavophobia, because those sentiments are held by many different groups of people. Edrigu 18:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


The references to "anti-Bosniakism" in the 19th century Serbia and earlier in Montenegro are problematic, because the people referred herein have never identified themselves as Bosniaks. It is historically inaccurate, because the Muslim population in Serbia DID NOT originate from Bosnia, but from Serbia itself - they were Serbs who converted to Islam. It is actually a reference of Islamophobia as pointed out previously. Perhaps some references could be provided to show otherwise? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.111.192.190 (talk • contribs).


"Serbs who converted to Islam?" Muhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha..... Bosniak 04:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Question: Are you saying there were no Serbs ever who converted to Islam, or you are saying that Bosnians are any Muslims of Slavic origin? What exactly are you claiming anyway?

I speedied the article at the time, and it was restored at WP:DRV. Since the deletion looks like a lost cause, I've restored the talk page and its history for other people's convenience. And I'm going away from it. Duja► 15:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments

I posed tens of questions to the above. Why were they all ignored? --PaxEquilibrium 21:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/t/Talk%7EAnti-Bosniak_sentiment_39c8.html"