Talk:Bosniaks of Montenegro

Fair use rationale for Image:Grbsandzaka.svg

Image:Grbsandzaka.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Should the content of this page be moved, along with Bosniaks of Serbia to the article Sandžaklias??

Hasanovic26 22:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Biased This article is too biased. There is absolutley no data on any Bosniaks in Montenegro prior to 2003.

If Muslims in Bosnia started declaring themeselves as Bosniaks that's OK. But you cannot bring the same concept to Montenegro, because a lot of Montenegro muslims don't have anything to do with those in Bosnia. They consider themseleves Montenegrins by nationality and muslims by religion, or Muslims by nationality and religion. Even those who declare themselves as Bosniak are Montenegrins by ancestry. So refering to 19th and 20th century Montenegro Muslims as Bosniak is neither true nor right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.161.97.7 (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I have tagged the history section because there are serious issues with neutrality and referencing. The relevance of Sandzak in history is not clear. The use of the term Bosniak pre-2003 is revisionist. There are absolutely no references. I've added some general undisputable referenced information at the top of the History sectionBigoras (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bosniaks of Montenegro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060427175522/http://www.sanjak.org:80/ to http://www.sanjak.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070221172916/http://www.bosniak.org:80/06/ to http://www.bosniak.org/06/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)