Talk:Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina

general history content in sections

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)

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)

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)

You can edit whatever you want and I might edit from there (if I disagree) :) OneGuy 00:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i think there is some logic missing from the article. like for instance. "(what about the otomans that remained in bosnia, they are muslims, meaning not all "modern (muslim)bosnians" converted to islam as stated so far... just not good enough info and therfore i mess upp with it....) " c'mon people there had have to to benn some otomans remaining. and therfore calling all bosnians converters, is just not good enough in a discusion about originality of the new identity. serbs still claim we are serbs, croats claim we are croats. if this does have any significance to the text i would like for it to reach the person who gives a crap to edit this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doratina (talk • contribs) 14:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

prohibition

Consumption of alcohol, once common to all, is now discouraged among Muslims and even prohibited in some Muslim-controlled areas.

Example of area where alcohol is prohibited? OneGuy? --Joy [shallot] 11:34, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I got that paragraph from the Bosnia and Herzegovina Embassy in Pakistan [[1]

Many Muslim women have adopted Islamic dress styles that had not been common, at least in cities, before the war. The destruction of the economy has thrust many previously working women into traditional female roles as housewives and mothers. Members of all groups favor a diet that is heavy on roast meats and bread. However, consumption of alcohol, once common to all, is now discouraged among Muslims and even prohibited in some Muslim-controlled areas.

You can remove it if it's not right OneGuy 18:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's not necessarily wrong, but I doubt that the amount of areas where there's prohibition is really noticable compared to the whole country. I've never heard of it, and such information would probably traverse country borders (because e.g. any traveller would possibly be breaking the local law if they stopped and tried to drink something alcoholic). Let's wait a bit for some Bosnians to provide more information. --Joy [shallot] 21:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, if alcohol is prohibited in some Muslim-controlled areas, it could be only prohibited for Muslims in that areas. This is true for even more religious Islamic countries. For example, alcohol/pork is prohibited to Muslims in Iraq, Pakistan, UAE, etc. Non-Muslims can drink alcohol in these countries. OneGuy 01:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I've never in my life heard of such areas, nor has anyone I know. If they exist they must be a very minor occurance. Asim Led 03:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To improve the article

This is an interesting start to the article. I think sometime in the future things that need to be improved upon are:

• "The Ottoman" should be renamed into "The Ottoman Period".
• I would like to expand a bit on the headscarf and cultural uniqueness of the Islam in Bosnia but Im not sure whether I should do that under "Secularism" or "The Ottoman". Perhaps it would be better to change "Secularism" into "Cultural uniqueness" or something along those lines.
• It should be mentioned that hanefijski is the historical type of Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• The Bosnian war section focuses a bit too much on politics. Maybe it would be good to merge it with the section after it and call it "Bosnian war and consequences"
• Is the mention of two anti-semitic web sites really that necessary? There are lunatics like that all over the place and I thought that the section up until then had done a great job adressing the issue.
• Ajvatovica.

My two cents.

p.s. Do you think I should do an interwiki for the "Islam among Bosniaks" article on Bosnian wikipedia[2]. Asim Led 03:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could something be said about the religious tolerance among the population of Sarajevo? Nearly everyone I met there pointed out with great pride that the city had a Mosque, a Cathedral, an Orthodox Church, and a Synagogue within a few blocks of each other downtown. I just can't come up with a good way to say it.

What is the role of the 'Reis-Ulema'? One source mentions him as "The Supreme Authority" of all the Muslims in the country.

Also, I looked up Ajvatovica, but I only found a little bit: Ajvatovica, the oldest Muslim sanctuary in Europe, is visited by 100,000 Bosniaks from around the world every June. I definitely want to hear more about it.... --Key45 20:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some suggestions

• 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)

Maybe he thinks Slavs means slaves :) OneGuy 07:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)

Another addition that I'd appreciate seeing is the adherence to religious practice [of Islam] among the Muslim/Bosniak population over time. I see that the article makes broad statements regarding overall increases in religious practice among the three ethnic groups, but I would like to know the percentages of people identifying with the religious/spiritual aspects of their respective ethnicity and not just the overall culture/tradition common to all in the ethnicity. I hope I'm making sense. The sense I have of the situation is that only a minority of people from the three ethnic groups actually adhere to the spiritual aspect of their culture... I'm too lazy to go through academic search engines to find this stuff, but if someone cares, its a good thing to include. XJeanLuc (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Copywritten images stolen and wrongfully claimed by user ZEC

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 {{imagevio}}. It seems that all Zec (talk · contribs) does is stealing images from other sites. Duja^► 08:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Slav or Serv Slavic tribe.

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)

Subject of the article

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[3] 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)

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)

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)

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)

revert on minorities

@User:Septate, User:Praxis Icosahedron, User:Iryna Harpy, I am going to take a walk around some of the neighbouring countries of Bosnia, to make the point that minority groups should be mentioned in this article. I shall avoid, Islam by country articles, because to be honest they lack quality.

• Italy mentions 7,000 Lutherans, 4,000 Methodists, and with the countries population of 60 million, these are tiny minorities. Same goes with several mentions in Religion in Italy.

• Serbia devotes an entire paragraph on Jews, yet today there are 578 Jews in existence in Serbia. A small number of 4000 Agnostics are too mentioned. Take a tour of Religion in Serbia and you shall notice an entire section devoted to Judaism.

• Greece mentions Greek Synod of Apostolic Church with 12,000 members, Free Apostolic Church of Pentecost with 20,000 members. Similarly with Jehovah's Witnesses. Again take a tour of Religion in Greece.

• Albania mentions small number of Seventh-day Adventist Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses including 200 Jews.

• Montenegro, doesn't shy away from mentioning small religious minorities. Again, also take a tour of Religion in Montenegro.

I do not see why 'Islam in Bosnia' should get special treatment, with respect to the minorities of Islam. Considering, the article construct, and my reasoning above based on better quality articles I do not see any reason why minorities should be censored here. I think we need to be careful with WP:DUE guideline which discusses the concept of giving due weight to 'viewpoints' and since religious demography is of statistical interest, we shouldn't go 'over the top' with this guideline.--Peaceworld 18:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning the very small minority denominations is by all means acceptable but does not warrant a place in the lead where major attributes are to be captured. Specific paragraphs within the article can be used more suitably. Imagine presenting the sentence "Swedes are predominantly lutheran, while a minority are buddhists" as a lead attribute. God bless the Swedish buddhists, which run in the hundreds and even thousands (believe it or not), but they are not quite yet at the level of being lead material. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 19:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I am explaining the same thing to User:Peaceworld111, but he is taking the wrong meaning. Furthermore, Italy mentions 7000 Lutherans which is different from Lutheran minority is also present. These two statements give different impressions to the reader. Same is the case with your edits. Your statements regarding ahmadis makes them 'look tooooo significant but in reality they are negligible. Moreover, your main focus is on ahmadiyya movement, you shoud improve Islam by country related articles also.Septate (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Albania mentions 200 Jews because they have historical significance. Read the whole article regarding them. The same goes with Greek catholicism, which has negligible followers but a great deal of historical significance. On the other hand, ahmadiyya movement has no historical significance for southeastern Europe as compared to Sunni Islam or Bektashi Shia order.Septate (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll go back to basics as to what the subject of the article is: "Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina". What, exactly, is WP:UNDUE about a lead summarising the forms of Islam practised? Most certainly, the title is not "Sunni Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina". If it were, then other Muslim minorities in the lead could be understood to be UNDUE... but it isn't, therefore forms of Islamic practices and law are DUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@User:Praxis Icosahedron. Firstly, the state of the article demands that the only suitable area to place the religious minorities is the lead section. Secondly, one can crop up examples to suit one's view. If Lutherans were the sole believers in Sweden with Buddhists being the only minority, then I do not see any issue with the statement "Lutheranism is the predominant faith of the Swedish people. A small minority of Swedes are Buddhists". Similarly I do not see an issue with "The Bosniaks are predominantly Muslim by religion, the majority of which are Sunni Muslims who subscribe to the Hanafi school of thought. Small minorities of Twelver Shia and Ahmadiyya Muslims also exist", or something along this line.

@User:Septate, the presence of statistics is not a prerequisite for a particular minority to be added. That should be clear. Neither is historical presence a prerequisite. --Peaceworld 09:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I would mostly agree with Septate. The non-Sunni denominations among Bosniaks date a) only from the post-war era and are above all b) nearly if not completly negligible. I would be surprised if their presence exceeds a percent or two at most, which brings me to the other issue, the abscence of reliable sources (RS)? Emphasizing what can be described here as obscure and peripheral community features postulates RS discussing not least their extent but also importance. I'm sure we can all agree that the lead should, as the article itself, not convey a skewed and distorted impression of what the situation is like on the ground. The word "minority" can mean 30% but also 0.30%, and this matters a lot to understading what "Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina" really is. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@User:Praxis Icosahedron, a)As User:Iryna Harpy pointed out in the section below, the article is not "Islam of the Bosniak people", but of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a country which has only existed since 1992, i.e. the post-war era. b) In the example I gave above, I used the phrase "small minority" which gives an impression of far less that 30%. Words can be adapted to suit the intended meaning such as for example "tiny minority" or "small numbers". There is no issue with that. Secondly, it is not common knowledge especially for the majority of the English-speaking world that the majority of Bosnia conforms to Sunni Islam. For such a strong claim, RS is no less important.--Peaceworld 09:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I find it somewhat bold challenging me to find RS for something that should be far easier than finding them for your claims. I say we start at your end in such case. Like I said this matters a lot to understading what "Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina" really is and not "Islam of the Bosniak people". Moreover, claiming that Bosnia and Herzegovina has "only existed since 1992" is either a case of grave ignorance or, dare I say, provocative POV. Bosnia has existed under various constellations since at least the 12th century, and most recently before becoming independent it was the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Either way, I would most rather see that you refrain from editing a subject you ultimately appear to know little of. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You are free to take a guideline as challenge if you so wish. here is one (seemingly anti-ahmadi) ref for Ahmadis, for example. Like I said earlier, historical presence is not a necessity, something which is being ignored. Take a round at various religion by country articles, and you shall see the clear mention of recently introduced smaller religions. Had the page been "history of Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina", then there may have been a case to the argument. I may not know a lot about the history of Bosnia, but fortunately enough that is not so relevant.--Peaceworld 22:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, "Bosnjaci.net" is not WP:RS. It is a Bosniak political magazine, and anyways your source ironically goes to show exactly how peripheral and sectarian-like the Ahmadis are in Bosnia. They are not even what can be considered a minority, but more like a sect. I don't see e.g. Religion in Poland mentioning deviant Christian sects in the lead. You are simply pushing the undue representation of these groups in a highly POV-slanted manner. Also, hitherto your only "source" confirms my point. The Ahmadis are no lead material. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 01:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, the current state of the article demands that the minorities be mentioned in the lead. If the structure of the article was different, then maybe we wouldn't be discussing here. Besides, of the numerous examples I gave, majority of them are too marginal to be classified as a minority, if the Shias and the Ahmadis are. There are some that are considered "deviant" by the Christian majority. Yet they are in the country articles, which should really be a summary of the religions in the respective countries. Lack of mention of a Christian sect, is never a reason to support of your point, as that sect may not have generated enough interest among Wikipedians. Whether a group is considered deviant by the majority of a country is irrelevant for the purposes of our discussion. RS is a relative concept. Indeed, the source is not reliable on details regarding the Ahmadiyya, but it is reliable enough for the point it makes regarding the presence of the Ahmadiyya in the country.--Peaceworld 08:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, arguments can always be manufactured when needed, it doesn't mean they're valid or even good. I've made an edit to the lead which I believe is a good compromise. The Shia are not a sect and can therefore be considered a minority, though you have not yet offered a RS which confirms Shia Muslims in Bosnia. But I'll take your word for it since it sounds reasonable. The Ahmadiyya, on the other hand, are a sectarian movement, at least in Bosnia. A following of a few dozen people or whatever does not warrant their categorization as a proper "minority". In such case, every individual in the country is a minority with their own unique set of beliefs and traditions. And don't try to compare this with the "300 Jews" mentioned above since the context is entirely different. The Jews are a numerous historic community which were subjected to genocide on that territory, and that is the background against which the "300 Jews" are mentioned. I would urge you and "Iryna Harpy" to stop pushing fringe aspects without presenting reliable sources as to why the group is relevant, or why it should even be considered a proper "minority". With all said and done, you've been presented with a compromise. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 16:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@User:Praxis Icosahedron. Sorry that I could not reply early enough. The source is reliable enough for the relevant claim we are looking for. For your satisfaction, I do not need to refer to "300 Jews". The first example I gave of '7000 Lutherans' in Italy suffices. For a country numbering under 4million as compared to a country of 60million, taking proportions, 7000 comes down to close to 300.--Peaceworld 11:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

How long is a piece of string?

Praxis Icosahedron, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• NKD138 Ferhadija2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Bugojno3.JPG (discussion)
• Istiqlal Mosque, Otoka, Sarajevo.jpg (discussion)
• King Fahd Mosque Sarajevo (1).JPG (discussion)
• Mosque in Kakanj.jpg (discussion)
• Nova džamija, Orašje Planje - panoramio.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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)

Vandalism from user 2600:1702:2920:5058:AC97:42E5:BEA0:731E

Keeps putting Bosniaks/Muslims at 31% instead of 51% of the population. There was no official census done since 2013 (where it was 51% Muslim, 31% Orthodox, 15% Catholic) and user is not providing sources either. Just swapping to be a "majority" in his own head. Might need a IP ban and/or locking of page soon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:1702:2920:5058:AC97:42E5:BEA0:731E == — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poggers6969420 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)