The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. It's fairly clear this AfD has attracted the ethno-nationalist bickering that makes discretionary sanctions necessary in this area. What arguments are based in policy and evidence are evenly divided. It's worth noting that fringe theories and movements can still have articles about them on Wikipedia; but conversely, that intellectually independent coverage is needed for such an article to exist. There is no consensus as to whether such coverage exists here. This discussion is in desperate need of outsider input, but this AfD has gotten long enough that it's unlikely to be forthcoming. No prejudice against renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian irredentism[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Bosnian irredentism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is UNDUE and likely based on POV. It lacks strong sources, while three included refed books lack any specific attribution to passage(s), chapter(s) or page number(s), and searching through it never revealed a discuss about "Bosnian irredentism" as established, recognized phenomenon in political discourse, social studies, history studies, etc. As such it appears like a conspiracy theory, rather than real thing (and it was created just recently, which in itself signals undue and pov; being under Balkan scope where so many articles on this topic is created and squabbled upon, it would need a true miracle this one to escape creation for so long). ౪ Santa ౪99° 08:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-Ljleppan (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These blind Google search by phrase "Bosnian irredentism" could mean many things and still miss the target completely, because Bosnia was ravaged by nationalistic and irredentist claims left and right, or should I say east and west. This article is attempting to create impression of existence of very specific pro-Bosnian ambitions to expend its territory at the expense of neighboring countries. That needs sources which will be strong enough to establish firm ground for claim of existence of such a phenomenon, and I am not seeing any so far.--౪ Santa ౪99° 14:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, above claim how Google Scholar offer "a lot of sources" on query greater bosnia is to say the least bogus - it does not offer any, let alone "a lot".--౪ Santa ౪99° 14:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dunno what you are searching, but I'm seeing About 334 000 results here. Ljleppan (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that you either do not know or don't want to know what exactly means a "clear and specific attribution to passage(s), chapter(s) or page number(s)", not just simply I have million Google hits on a query.--౪ Santa ౪99° 17:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why my good faith attempt to help this discussion along means such a response of accusing me of lying is appropriate, so maybe calm down a bit. I was both quite clear that this is far from my domain of expertise, and I also only left my comment as, well, a comment rather than as a !vote.
    Since you want more detailed quotes, here's Sadkovich summarising How Bosnia Armed by Marko Attila Hoare (I don't have access to the book itself): For example, he concludes that rather than promote peace, the Vance-Owen Plan of January 1993 “undoubtedly encouraged both Bosnian Croatian irredentism and Muslim separatism,” in a The Journal of Military History review [2]. Hoare also talks about how Western diplomacy catalyzed both Bosnian-Croat irredentism and Zagreb's partitionism in The Croatian project to partition Bosnia-Hercegovina, 1990-1994. Robinson and Pobric, on the other hand, discuss how e.g. There are mixed messages within this appeal to a ‘greater’ Bosnia. It hints at a single ‘Bosnian’ identity devoid of the current ethno-nationalist categories of ‘Croat’, ‘Serb’ or ‘Muslim’, but it also confers a distinction upon Bosnian Muslims as having historic differences with their neighbours through their conversion to Islam, while possibly introducing the notion of Muslim Bosnia with wider territorial boundaries. in Nationalism And Identity In Post‐Dayton Accords: Bosnia‐Hercegovina. Ljleppan (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, for pete's sake, your top hit is a title: The need for greater regional protection for the human rights of women: The cases of rape in Bosnia and Guatemala, so yeah it has both "greater" and "Bosnia" in it. ౪ Santa ౪99° 18:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not question your good faith, I reiterated what you said yourself. Anyhow, you really think that article on topic controversial such as this can be built on couple of sidenotes in otherwise comprehensive works on topic more or less related to it, if at all? In your first quote Marko Hoare mentions "Muslim separatism" - yes, in what context, and how is "separatism" equal to "irredentism"? Your second quote talks about something completely different - it talks about Bosnian-Croats irredentism, meaning irredentism by Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina, not (pro)Bosnian, and your own quote can't be clearer: "diplomacy catalyzed both [one (1)] Bosnian-Croat irredentism and [two (2)] Zagreb's partitionism”. Quote from Pobrić is completely out of context and has nothing with ideology or politically expressed and recognized ambition on the part of pro-Bosnian socio-political forces, not to mention it comprise of two disjointed sentences out of 16 and 24 pages two paper (actually, it's one and a same paper, just extended and re-titled), which, by the way talk about historically registered "greater Bosnia" which really existed 6 hundred years ago.--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If my reading of those texts was wrong, then I have no problem accepting that. Again, I've been extremely clear about my (lack of) expertise here. Ljleppan (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All that said, I'd appreciate an apology for the incredibly hostile tone in your earlier replies. Ljleppan (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which part in my replies offended you? If I was not particularly polite, it doesn't necessarily mean that I was hostile or offending, nor that I perceived your posting as bad faith inputs - I believe that I am usually very careful not to offend people in these discussions. That being said, I am not sure one of your own replies was that much more subtle. ౪ Santa ౪99° 19:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In quote you introduced, from shorter paper, it talks about neighbors as people living next to them within Bosnia, and about wider borders of Muslim state within Bosnia but after Serbian and Croatian chunks of Bosnian territory are joined to Greater Croatia and Greater Serbia - in those two sentences it does not talks about extension of the Bosnia and Herzegovina territory at the expense of neighboring countries. And that's a context in which two sentences sit. ౪ Santa ౪99° 19:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you are not an expert, but neither am I, however I can say that I know enough to say that the article is based on POV and it is UNDUE because it lack strong sources, which can clearly describe phenomenon - this means, even if your reading is so-so, not completely or not at all wrong, this is still long way from sufficiently describing, explaining and attesting phenomenon called Bosnian irredentism. We have article on Bosniak nationalism, which makes sense, but claim of Bosnian irredentism is really undue (not to mention it faces the same problem as former article called Bosnian nationalism.)--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, there's a lot of sources talking about Bosnian irredentism over the region of Sandžak. "a senior Sandzak Muslim leader warned that the region might attach itself to Bosnia if Serbia did not grant it autonomy" [3] (p. 613), "criticized the fact that Muslim nationalism "recently has jointed to its idea about the Muslims as the sole bearers of the statehood of Bosnia and Hercegovina a unitaristic thesis about annexing Sandzak to such a Muslim state"". [4], p. 192, "With the purpose of drawing the attention of the public, on 25.09.2010 in Senica they organized a column of a dozen of cars waving the mujahedeen flag and shouting "We love Bosnia" and "Sandzak is Bosnia"" [5], p. 13, "According to Zulfikarpašić, Milošević agreed to this plan, which also would have given 60 percent of Sandzak to Bosnia and autonomy to the rest of the region" [6], I don't know the page, "in the Sandžak region between Montenegro and Serbia, a regional Muslim autonomy movement would be happy to unify with coreligionists to the north and create a Greater Bosnia", [7]. Note that Sandžak has an autonomist/seccessionist movement [8] (p. 288), [9], p. 473, which could be followed by integration into Bosnia [10], p. 641. Also note that this article receives a decent traffic of views; 657 in the last 30 days.
It is clear that there's a movement for Sandžak becoming part of Bosnia. The real question that should be asked here is if there's irredentist claims for any other land (there probably are, but are fringe and were made only by single individuals). If not, we could change the scope of this article strictly to Bosnian irredentism over Sandžak, or Sandžak autonomist or secessionist movements. But the combination of modern Bosnia and Herzegovina and the region of Sandžak is often referred to as "Greater Bosnia" [11]. So maybe nothing at all should be changed. By the way, there's a few more links that I could've cited here, but I was lazy. But there's more literature talking about Bosnian irredentism over Sandžak. And all this is only talking about English-language sources, not Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin/Serbian ones that could probably give a deeper insight... Super Ψ Dro 07:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, I just added the pages for the three cited sources in the article. Super Ψ Dro 07:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As if I wasn't aware that anyone can dig out few sentences here and there if one gives enough effort digging across the Internet? However, not one of the cited sources in above post mention let alone delve on and explain "Bosnian irredentism" It is, also, likely creator does not even have a clear picture of what Bosnia and Herzegovina is: a multi-national state, whose three ethnic groups squabble over partitioning, secession politics, and identity politics for the last 30 years. Nothing in Bosnia and Herzegovina politics and ideology is Bosnian in nature. To establish ground for article on such a controversial topic, creator citing Serbian Muslim leader statement found in a few sentences in otherwise completely different topic research, in which cited "leader" makes threat of succeeding and joining Bosnia and Herzegovina, is both hardly Bosnian irredentism, and hardly sufficient sourcing to establish existence of the phenomenon as such. Same applies to other cited sources in above post - not one is on topic of "Bosnian irredentism", not one even mention "Bosnian irredentism" as a phenomenon, and not once we read "Bosnian irredentism" let alone find any explanations about it - we are presented only with few sentences of some people making statements, or how Milošević wanted to partition territory of failing Yugoslavia to reach his own goals. Then, citing mechanical engineer (Peter Sandys) and his irrelevant book is hardly relevant for our article - but even if the one quote taken out of what is otherwise book on broad topic of "Western challenges" is true, it is still sidenote mention, and nowhere we find any mention let alone explanation of "Bosnian irredentism". ౪ Santa ౪99° 18:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I used UNDUE and POV simply because I had no basis to claim that this was Original Research and Synthesis because you simply didn't offer any sources. However, now that you have offered a few sentences in which Sandzak's separatism and Milosevic's political calculations are mentioned literally in passing, I can claim that you have created this article based on OR and Synth. ౪ Santa ౪99° 20:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Established editors would say that this is how should real RS look like if one want to establish firm ground for creation of an article on such a controversial topic, in this example article on Serbian Irredentism (which, by the way, apparently redirect to Greater Serbia): The Policy of Serbian Expansionism, with Specific Reference to Albanians in the Decade Preceding the Balkan Wars: The International History Review: Vol 41, No 1
Or how would look like real RS on Romanian Irredentism (although weak because it is an older work, it establishes reasonable contention that such phenomenon exists or at least existed in recent history, so established editor would try to search and find more suitable ones by date and scope): Romanian expansionism beyond the Dniester--౪ Santa ౪99° 21:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for the creation of alleged "Sandžak autonomist movement" or something under even more problematic title like "Sandžak secessionist movement", you should first check if something like that already exists, if not, you really need to establish that something like that exists by finding proper RS, not sentences picked up out of works on entirely another topic. You need to provide focused research on the subject of such a movement existence, activities, goals, etc. ౪ Santa ౪99° 21:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited a big number of sources that shows that the covered subject does exists. The aim that I had when creating this article was never to write an exhaustive research work but to set the ground so that other editors in the future that may be interested in the topic can gradually expand the article if they wish to. It is true that the three cited sources are not ideal, again my aim was only to make the page exist. The solution to this is expanding the article, not deleting it.
It is, also, likely creator does not even have a clear picture of what Bosnia and Herzegovina is: a multi-national state... you might be surprised to know that your assumption is wrong, perhaps you could have realized this by reading the first paragraph of this article that I wrote which explains the national desires of Bosnia's different peoples.
I can claim that you have created this article based on OR and Synth sure, if you wish to. Let's see if other editors agree.
As for the creation of alleged "Sandžak autonomist movement" or something under even more problematic title like "Sandžak secessionist movement", you should first check if something like that already exists, if not, you really need to establish that something like that exists by finding proper RS well, I did find this article [12]. These also seem relevant [13] [14] (page 48: "The SDA leaders were usually using the word "reunification", highlighting the fact that Sandzak was once part of Bosnia under the rule of the Ottoman Empire.87 Consequently, the referendum question left as possibility future convergence with Bosnia and Herzegovina"). And I guess that 1991 Sandžak autonomy referendum proves the existence of a Sandžak autonomy movement, which as you can see on the quote I just left here, may devolve into integration into Bosnia and Herzegovina (therefore, one may argue that the Sandžak autonomy movement could be covered here as well, adding to notability of this article). Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you claim that you know that Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a nation state, and in extension probably know that "Bosnia" is just a regional name and not geo-political entity, that makes your creation of this article even more problematic. I really don't know what Sandžak's alleged striving for autonomy has to do with "Bosnian irredentism", but your new papers do not say anything about "Bosnian irredentism" or "Greater Bosnia". ౪ Santa ౪99° 10:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish, you can propose to rename this article to "Bosniak irredentism" instead, I am not opposed. It currently exists as a redirect which I created after writing this page. your new papers do not say anything about "Bosnian irredentism" or "Greater Bosnia" but they talk about a movement for accessing a Bosniak-populated area into Bosnia and Herzegovina, or at least giving it autonomy. Super Ψ Dro 10:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer, but I'll pass. Hopefully, we will have more participants in the next day or two, and, also hopefully, more senior editors who know something about the Balkans and ideology - also more neutral, besides two of us discussing as creator and nominator.
By the way, we have Bosniak nationalism article - I don't know of what quality, but I guess whatever is currently in that article does not and cannot undermine validity of that article nor the factuality of Bosniak nationalism as real, existent phenomenon. That article was also moved from Bosnian nationalism to Bosniak nationalism, which is appropriate take on that issue. I am absolutely sure that "Bosnian irredentism" simply does not exist, hence my resolute attitude in getting to the bottom of it, and zealous search through and thorough review of all of the subsequent sources offered here. ౪ Santa ౪99° 11:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I now understand more your viewpoint and your rejection of using "Bosnian". It is true that "Bosnian" refers to the country as a whole and it's three ethnicities. Maybe using "Bosniak" is necessary. Super Ψ Dro 14:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still doubt that even Bosniak Irredentism is a thing (not least because we use title Greater Foo) in compliance with the WP:Notability per General notability guide. However, Bosniak nationalism article could cover if there are any tendencies within mainstream political forces that could at least hint some kind of irredentist / greater Bosna program and coherent greater Bosnia ideology (I sincerely doubt it, tho') - as you must have noticed yourself in searching for sources, that all you found is mention in passing, sometimes not even mentioning phenomenon by name.
Don't be overly annoyed by my "problematic title" for "Sandžak secessionism" statement, because, although I believe "secessionism" is all too strong of a word, and one cannot equate real secessionism of Milorad Dodik kind with a kind of fringe Sandžak's one (which is really more of a demand for autonomy than genuine secessionism), I do think that demands for Sandžak autonomy are legitimate topic for the stand-alone article. ౪ Santa ౪99° 14:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinion on internal Bosnian politics and whether they are laughable or plausible or not are irrelevant. I've presented evidence showing support among Bosniaks for integrating Sandžak into Bosnia and Herzegovina. I too believe this will very hardly ever happen. Super Ψ Dro 14:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you did not present such evidence. You have found paper on another topic and cherrypicked one or two sentences where author mentioning in passing unnamed individual making a statement or threat - that's not significant coverage. Check the General notability guideline (see explanation on "significant coverage" with two contrasting examples) ౪ Santa ౪99° 18:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
but even the most ardent Bosniak nationalists do not propose unification of these territories this is contrary to the sources I've brought above. It would help if editors attempted to read discussions before participating in them. Super Ψ Dro 14:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More