Jump to content

Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hadžija (talk | contribs) at 00:24, 18 May 2007 (→Sports). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:WPC" redirects here. For the WikiProject on WikiProjects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. For the editing tool, see Wikipedia:WPCleaner. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject China.
Project Countries main pageTalkParticipantsTemplatesArticlesPicturesTo doArticle assessmentCountries portal

This WikiProject helps develop country-related pages (of all types) and works toward standardizing the formats of sets and types of country-related pages. For example, the sets of Culture of x, Administrative divisions of x, and Demographics of x articles, etc. – (where "x" is a country name) – and the various types of pages, like stubs, categories, etc.

WikiProject Countries articles as of May 7, 2024

What's new?

Did you know

Articles for deletion

  • 13 Oct 2024 – List of ASEAN countries by IQ (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Chaotic Enby (t · c) was closed as delete by Asilvering (t · c) on 20 Oct 2024; see discussion (9 participants)
  • 28 Sep 2024 – Western Armenia Government in Exile (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Yerevantsi (t · c) was closed as no consensus by Daniel (t · c) on 19 Oct 2024; see discussion (11 participants; relisted)

Proposed deletions

  • 24 Oct 2024 – Champa (Ja Thak Wa) (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by 202.53.53.118 (t · c): Cham nationalist sockpuppet created this article, most the sources belong to Po Dharma who was a leader of FULRO who actively fought against the Vietnamese and held hatred for. Unclear if whats stated here is genuine
  • 22 Oct 2024 – Dobruja Horde (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Mccapra (t · c): Unverifiable.

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Requests for comments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

To do list

Scope

This WikiProject is focused on country coverage (content/gaps) and presentation (navigation, page naming, layout, formatting) on Wikipedia, especially country articles (articles with countries as their titles), country outlines, and articles with a country in their name (such as Demographics of Germany), but also all other country-related articles, stubs, categories, and lists pertaining to countries.

This WikiProject helps Wikipedia's navigation-related WikiProjects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge, WikiProject Categories, WikiProject Portals, etc.) develop and maintain the navigation structures (menus, outlines, lists, templates, and categories) pertaining to countries. And since most countries share the same subtopics ("Cities of", "Cuisine of", "Religion in", "Prostitution in", etc.), it is advantageous to standardize their naming, and their order of presentation in Wikipedia's indexes and table-of-contents-like pages.

Categories

Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Countries
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
WikiProject Countries

Subpages

Formatting

Many country and country-related articles have been extensively developed, but much systematic or similar information about many countries is not presented in a consistent way. Inconsistencies are rampant in article naming, headings, data presented, types of things covered, order of coverage, etc. This WikiProject works towards standardizing page layouts of country-related articles of the same type ("Geography of", "Government of", "Politics of", "Wildlife of", etc.).

We are also involved with the standardization of country-related stubs, standardizing the structure of country-related lists and categories (the category trees for countries should be identical for the most part, as most countries share the same subcategories – though there will be some differences of course).

Goals

  1. Provide a centralized resource guide of all related topics in Wikipedia, as well as spearhead the effort to improve and develop them.
  2. Create uniform templates that serve to identify all related articles as part of this project, as well as stub templates to englobe all related stubs under specific categories.
  3. Standardize articles about different nations, cultures, holidays, and geography.
  4. Verify historical accuracy and neutrality of all articles within the scope of the project.
  5. Create, expand and cleanup related articles.

Structure and guidelines

Although referenced during FA and GA reviews, this structure guide is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. Articles may be best modeled on the layout of an existing article of appropriate structure and topic (See: Canada, Japan and Australia)

Main polities

Main article: Country

A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. When referring to a specific polity, the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, states with limited recognition, constituent country, or a dependent territory.

Lead section

Shortcut
See also: WP:Lead section
For lead length see, #Size
Opening paragraphs
Further information: MOS:INTRO

The article should start with a good simple introduction, giving name of the country, general location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article). The primary purpose of a Wikipedia lead is not to summarize the topic, but to summarize the content of the article.

First sentence
Further information: MOS:FIRST

The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject is, and where. It should be in plain English.

The etymology of a country's name, if worth noting and naming disputes, may be dealt with in the etymology section. Foreign-languages, pronunciations and acronyms may also belong in the etymology section or in a note to avoid WP:LEADCLUTTER.

Example:

checkY Sweden,[a] formally the Kingdom of Sweden,[b] is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.
☒N Sweden,(Swedish: Sverige [ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ) formally the Kingdom of Sweden,(Swedish: Konungariket Sverige [ˈkôːnɵŋaˌriːkɛt ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ) is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.

Detail and duplication

Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, excessive numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the infobox or body of the article.

Example:

checkY A developed country, Canada has a high nominal per capita income globally and its advanced economy ranks among the largest in the world, relying chiefly upon its abundant natural resources and well-developed international trade networks. Recognized as a middle power, Canada's strong support for multilateralism and internationalism has been closely related to its foreign relations policies of peacekeeping and aid for developing countries. Canada is part of multiple international organizations and forums.
☒N A highly developed country, Canada has the seventeenth-highest nominal per-capita income globally and the sixteenth-highest ranking in the Human Development Index. Its advanced economy is the tenth-largest in the world and the 14th for military expenditure by country, Canada is part of several major international institutions including the United Nations, NATO, the G7, the Group of Ten, the G20, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the Commonwealth of Nations, the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, and the Organization of American States.

Infobox

There is a table with quick facts about the country called an infobox. A template for the table can be found at the bottom of this page.

Although the table can be moved out to the template namespace (to e.g. [[Template:CountryName Infobox]]) and thus easen the look of the edit page, most Wikipedians still disapprove as of now, see the talk page.

The contents are as follows:

  • The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all (if reasonably feasible). The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s). This is not a parameter to list every recognized language of a country, but rather for listing officially recognize national languages.
  • The conventional short-form name of the country, recognised by the majority of the English-speaking world; ideally, this should also be used for the name of the article.
  • A picture of the national flag. You can find flags at the List of flags. A smaller version should be included in the table itself, a larger-sized version in a page titled Flag of <country>, linked to via the "In Detail" cell. Instead of two different images, use the autothumbnail function that wiki offers.
  • A picture of the national coat of arms. A good source is required for this, but not yet available. It should be no more than 125 pixels in width.
  • Below the flag and coat of arms is room for the national motto, often displayed on the coat of arms (with translation, if necessary).
  • The official language(s) of the country. (rot the place to list every recognized or used language)
  • The political status. Specify if it is a sovereign state or a dependent territory.
  • The capital city, or cities. Explain the differences if there are multiple capital cities using a footnote (see example at the Netherlands).
  • If the data on the population is recent and reliable, add the largest city of the country.
  • Land area: The area of the country in square kilometres (km²) and square miles (sq mi) with the world-ranking of this country. Also add the % of water, which can be calculated from the data in the Geography article (make it negligible if ~0%).
  • Population: The number of inhabitants and the world-ranking; also include a year for this estimate (should be 2000 for now, as that is the date of the ranking). For the population density you can use the numbers now available.
  • GDP: The amount of the gross domestic product on ppp base and the world ranking. also include the amount total and per head.
  • HDI: Information pertaining to the UN Human Development Index – the value, year (of value), rank (with ordinal), and category (colourised as per the HDI country list).
  • Currency; the name of the local currency. Use the pipe if the currency name is also used in other countries: [[Australian dollar|dollar]].
  • Time zone(s); the time zone or zones in which the country is relative to UTC
  • National anthem; the name of the National anthem and a link to the article about it.
  • Internet TLD; the top-level domain code for this country.
  • Calling Code; the international Calling Code used for dialing this country.
Lead map

There is a long-standing practice that areas out of a state's control should be depicted differently on introductory maps, to not give the impression the powers of a state extend somewhere they do not. This is for various types of a lack of control, be it another state (eg. Crimea, bits of Kashmir) or a separatist body (eg. DPR, TRNC).

Sections

Further information: Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Too much detail
Shortcut

A section should be written in summary style, containing just the important facts. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. Main article fixation is an observed effect that editors are likely to encounter in county articles. If a section it is too large, information should be transferred to the sub-article. Avoid sections focusing on criticisms or controversies. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections.

Articles may consist of the following sections:

  • Etymology sections are often placed first (sometimes called name depending on the information in the article). Include only if due information is available.
  • History – An outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs, depending on complexity of history), including some detail on current events. Sub-article: "History of X"
  • Politics – Overview of the current governmental system, possibly previous forms, some short notes on the parliament. Sub-article: "Politics of X"
  • Administrative divisions – Overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (and subsequent levels, if available) (e.g. provinces, states, departments, districts, etc.) and give the English equivalent name, when available. Also include overseas possessions. This section should also include an overview map of the country and subdivisions, if available.
  • Geography – Details of the country's main geographic features and climate. Historical weather boxes should be reserved for sub articles. Sub-article: "Geography of X"
  • Economy – Details on the country's economy, major industries, bit of economic history, major trade partners, a tad comparison etc. Sub-article: "Economy of X"
  • Demographics – Mention the languages spoken, the major religions, some well known properties of the people of X, by which they are known. Uncontextualized data and charts should be avoided. (See WP:NOTSTATS and WP:PROSE) Sub-article: "Demographics of X".
  • Culture – Summary of the country's specific forms of art (anything from painting to film) and its best known cultural contributions. Caution should be taken to ensure that the sections are not simply a listing of names or mini biographies of individuals accomplishments. Good example Canada#Sports. Sub-article: "Culture of X".
  • See also – 'See also" sections of country articles normally only contain links to "Index of country" and "Outline of country" articles, alongside the main portal(s).
  • References – Sums up "Notes", "References", and all "Further Reading" or "Bibliography"
  • External links – Links to official websites about the country. See WP:External links
Size
Shortcut
Main pages: Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style § Article size
Articles that have gone through FA and GA reviews generally consists of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 words as per WP:SIZERULE, with a lead usually four paragraphs as per MOS:LEADLENGTH.
  • Australia = Prose size (text only): 60 kB (9,304 words) "readable prose size"
  • Bulgaria = Prose size (text only): 56 kB (8,847 words) "readable prose size"
  • Canada = Prose size (text only): 67 kB (9,936 words) "readable prose size"
  • Germany = Prose size (text only): 54 kB (8,456 words) "readable prose size"
  • Japan = Prose size (text only): 51 kB (8,104 words) "readable prose size"
  • East Timor = Prose size (text only): 53 kB (8152 words) "readable prose size"
  • Malaysia = Prose size (text only): 57 kB (9092 words) "readable prose size"
  • New Zealand = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9761 words) "readable prose size"
  • Philippines = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9178 words) "readable prose size"
Hatnote

The link should be shown as below: Avoid link clutter of multiple child articles in a hierarchical setup as hatnotes. Important links/articles shoukd be incorporated into the prose of the section. For example, Canada#Economy is a summary section with a hatnote to Economy of Canada that summarizes the history with a hatnote to Economic history of Canada. See WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE for more recommended hatnote usages.

checkY== Economy ==

Main article: Economy of Canada

☒N== Economy ==

Main article: Economy of Canada

See also: Petroleum industry in Canada and Agriculture in Canada

Further information: Economic history of Canada and Early Canadian banking system

Charts

Shortcut

As prose text is preferred, overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams such as economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles on the topic as per WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS.

Galleries

Shortcut

Galleries or clusters of images are generally discouraged as they may cause undue weight to one particular section of a summary article and may cause accessibility problems, such as sand­wich­ing of text, images that are too small or fragmented image display for some readers as outlined at WP:GALLERY. Articles that have gone through modern FA and GA reviews generally consists of one image for every three or four paragraph summary section, see MOS:ACCESS#FLOAT and MOS:SECTIONLOC for more information.

Footers

As noted at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes the number of templates at the bottom of any article should be kept to a minimum. Country pages generally have footers that link to pages for countries in their geographic region. Footers for international organizations are not added to country pages, but they rather can go on subpages such as "Economy of..." and "Foreign relations of..." Categories for some of these organizations are also sometimes added. Templates for supranational organizations like the European Union and CARICOM are permitted. A list of the footers that have been created can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, however note that many of these are not currently in use.

Transclusions

Transclusions are generally discouraged in country articles for reasons outlined below.

This section is transcluded from Help:Transclusion. (edit | history)
Shortcut
Further information: Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits

Like many software technologies, transclusion comes with a number of drawbacks. The most obvious one being the cost in terms of increased machine resources needed; to mitigate this to some extent, template limits are imposed by the software to reduce the complexity of pages. Some further drawbacks are listed below.

Lists of countries

To determine which entities should be considered separate "countries" or included on lists, use the entries in ISO 3166-1 plus the list of states with limited recognition, except:

  • Lists based on only a single source should follow that source.
  • Specific lists might need more logical criteria. For example, list of sovereign states omits non-sovereign entities listed by ISO-3166-1. Lists of sports teams list whichever entities that have teams, regardless of sovereignty. Lists of laws might follow jurisdiction boundaries (for example, England and Wales is a single jurisdiction).

For consistency with other Wikipedia articles, the names of entities do not need to follow sources or ISO-3166-1. The names used as the titles of English Wikipedia articles are a safe choice for those that are disputed.

Resources

Notes

  1. ^ Swedish: Sverige [ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ; Finnish: Ruotsi; Meänkieli: Ruotti; Northern Sami: Ruoŧŧa; Lule Sami: Svierik; Pite Sami: Sverji; Ume Sami: Sverje; Southern Sami: Sveerje or Svöörje; Yiddish: שוועדן, romanized: Shvedn; Scandoromani: Svedikko; Kalo Finnish Romani: Sveittiko.
  2. ^ Swedish: Konungariket Sverige [ˈkôːnɵŋaˌriːkɛt ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ
WikiProject iconYugoslavia A‑class
WikiProject iconBosnia and Herzegovina is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia articles
AThis article has been rated as A-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Official Name of Bosnia and Herzegovina

There is a continuity with the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (March 1 1992-December 15 1995). However, officially the Republic doesn't exist, and ought to be given its own historical entry. This is contained in the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (set out in Annex 4 of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina): liable sources on this planet. I mean come on, it's a spy organization =).

In addition, I hear "republicka bosna i hercegovina" every single time before the country's name is cited on Bosnian news. Mehicdino 22:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I hope your are able to read. And the further discussion about this seems futile.

The CIA factbook says the following:

conventional long form: none conventional short form: 'Bosnia and Herzegovina' local long form: none local short form: Bosna i Hercegovina former: People's Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina

So I don't see a reason for your constant reverts to information that is wrong. You can call it an "emerging federal democratic republic", but its federalization is being strongly opposed to by the Bosniak politicians (federal Bosnia is the agenda of Milorad Dodik, the RS prime minister). This is why I opted for the neutral variant of "parliamentary democracy", while people can go to Political divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina to go into further detail on the political system. In essence, I have nothing against calling it a republic as a description of its political system, I have a problem with "emerging federal", because it means nothing -- to emerge is such a vague term, that I don't think it's suitable for an encyclopedic entry, while "federal" is just not true (yet).

--OgiDog

Also, in Bosnian, Serbian or Croatian it is "republika". "Republicka" is an adjective. You didn't seem to have been listening carefully to the news.

Please stop vandalizing the pages for once!!!


Ogidog, please educate yourself more in what you say as I won't even begin to counter your complete fantasy entry there such as saying that the Bosniak politicians of the country are opposing a democratic Bosnia and Herzegovina, as they are doing just the opposite of what you say. Also, parliamentary democracy is fine as the government type of this country on Wikipedia, as "emerging federal democratic republic" is just even more specific then "parliamentary democracy". And finally, whoever made the dumb claim that "republicka" is an adjective you too educate yourself. I speak Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian and if I say "Ova zemlja je republicka" that would mean "This country is a republic". Mehicdino 23:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian -- "Ova zemlja je REPUBLIKA" is "This country is a republic" (not "republicka"). Furthermore, "republička vlada" means "the government of the republic" of "the republican government" (the adjective or "pridjev" in Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian). Other actual speakers of the language will confirm this. If you read what I said, also, which I presume you didn't, I just stated that the Bosniak politicians oppose the "federal" Bosnia, not the democracy. I will stop arguing with you as of this moment, as you make zero sense. Please stop vandalizing the page. --OgiDog


My bad Ogidog, I typoed. "republika" is noun for republic and "republička" is verb for republican. Oh and I am aware of your edit of your past entry, before the edit it clearly said that the Bosniak politicians are opposing a democracy, you just changed it now. And finally, I'm not vandalizing the page. If you go on dictionary.com and enter "vandalism" it will say deliberate malicious destruction of something. Regardless if I was right or not, if I thought I was truly right and kept reverting something it wouldn't be vandalism, yet just plain ignorance. Oh and sign your name with four tildes (the key right above left tab and left of #1. ), not with "--Ogidog". Mehicdino 22:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well, you had more than one "typo". Also please show me the version of this page where I accuse the Bosniak lot of being against democracy. This is ridiculous. -- Ogidog


OHR until 2008

May you please check and update the sections about the High Representative? It is the news of these days that OHR will continue to work until 2008 -- Dans-Sverige

Regarding "Discoveries" section

I wrote the section many months before when the Bosnian pyramid project was ongoing, but now its over and there is no use for the existence of the section. -- Burning Exile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burning Exile (talk • contribs) 22:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC (UTC)

One-word name of Republic of Srpska

sh: Republika Srpska (RS) = en: The Republic of Serbland = de: Republik Serbland

one-word name: sh: Srpska = en, de: Serbland

(Srpski jezički priručnik, Beograd 2004)

some info here: http://www.rastko.org.yu/filologija/bbrboric-jezik/bbrboric-jezik5.html

There were attempts to coin words before. This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. I'm cracking up from these idle ludicrous suggestions. RS is actually untranslatable -- the international policy is to use "Republika Srpska", not the Republic of Srpska. As it is in modern Serbo-Croat, in English too, the correct term is actually Republika Srpska, in it's Serbo-Croat form, this in part is because RS is not a Republic, it's an entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina (which is not a "state" either, which makes the matter even funnier, a non-republic called republic inside a state which is only referred to as the state in the official name of its border service and nowhere else! -- welcome to Bosnia and Herzegovina!!!). Ogidog --24.2.242.93 06:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Bosnia-Herzegovina

Does anyone know why Bosnia & Herzegovina stopped using the name "Bosnia-Herzegovina"?

Because it never used it. It has always been Bosnia AND Herzegovina, and has always been representing itself as such. The real question is why it actually ever became hyphenated :). --Ogidog
Bosnia-Herzegovina isn't much different from Bosnia and Herzegovina, it's just a hyphen. However in sports such as soccer you'll see the country still as "Bosnia-Herzegovina" because on game tables and team names etc, there is no "and". Mehicdino 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Bosnia-Herzegovina is not the name of the country and never was in Serbo-Croat. Simply because Trinidad and Tobago, Antigua and Barbuda, St. Pierre et Miquelon are all called with their "ands". And pertains to two geographical regions that make up the country. The hyphen doesn't make sense. It is probably an old mistake that persisted.
It is similar to the actual translation of the name "Bosna" which was erroneously taken over as "Bosnia" in the recent centuries as a (flawed) analogy to "Serbia", "Romania" or "Bulgaria" (or their French or German versions). The difference is that the respective original names have the i(j)a ending, denoting a noun that names a region or a country, while ther area of "Bosna" was named after the Bosna river (most likely) which was very common in the area (there are still (albeit smaller) areas of Bosnia called Usora or Vrbas from the olden times, rather than Usoria or Vrbasia, and these rivers still run). It appears that if areas were named after rivers, the didn't get the -ia ending. --Ogidog


Srpska - noun and adjective

You have said "using the previous precedents such as the word "hrvatska" (which means both "Hrvatska" - Croatia and "hrvatska" - Croatian as an adjective, f.), the word Srpska was also declared to be a proper noun". There is no precedent with the word "hrvatska". In Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian language almost every name of the state is both noun and adjective - Bugarska (Bulgaria), Madjarska (Hungary), Grcka (Greece), Njemacka (Germany), Francuska (France), Engleska (England), etc. So, the noun "Srpska" was not declared to be a noun. The noun Srpska, as the name of the state, the republic or the entity is completely based on language rules and the spirit of Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian language.

I propose that you either delete this part (from the words "because the word" to the words "declared to be a proper noun", or to explain the creation of names of states in Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian language.

Stevo

I do agree that there is no precedent, nor any declaration of the word to be a noun!!! That's ridiculous. Nouns such as country names that have adjective pairs such as the ones you listed above (or the Serbo-Croat , including the novel one "Srpska" are actually what Serbo-Croat grammarians call "poimeničeni prid(j)evi" or, in English, nominalized adjectives. I think it is just a case of poor English in "declared to be a proper noun", which often pops up in these entries that are often only interesting to people they concern directly, so there are few edits from native speakers! --Ogidog


Tomoslav and Kresimir IV -Joy edits

It was shown by the Croat historian I. Goldstein that Tomoslav and Kresimir IV never ruled Bosnia (Hrvatski rani srednji vijek, p. 286-291) For that matter, the Croat historian N. Klaic pointed out that their rule never extended beyond the river Una (N. Klaic, Prilog IX).

My, my, my....they would like to do some history revisionism & they cant even spell the names properly. OK, time for reality check:
  • Ivo Goldstein is not generally accepted as *the* authority on Croatian medieval period. His book on Croatian medieval history, «Hrvatski rani srednji vijek» is still a textbook on Croatian medievalistics only due to the fact that he taught the subject for some time (he is now teaching Croatian contemporary history- and his position is precarious since his credentials are weak: he was appointed to the chair mostly due to machinations of political cliques of pro-Yugoslav & Communist affiliation still dominant in parts of Croatian academic life). Nevertheless, his stature as authority in Croatian medieval history is not very strong: the dominant tone is set by academicians Tomislav Raukar and Radoslav Katičić, as well as younger historians like Mladen Ančić, Milko Brković etc. But, let's see Goldstein's work for a while: on page 286. Goldstein dismissed the reports of Tomislav's reign in Bosnia- without a slightest argument. He enumerated a few sources that claimed Tomislav had ruled in Bosnia and simply stated he didn't believe them. That's not a «proof» of anything, but an ex-cathedra pronouncement with no basis whatsoever. Another thing is his «contribution» on the page 308. There he quotes LJPD/Chronicle of the priest of Dioclea: «Krešimir zauze čitavu Bosnu i zavlada njom»/Krešimir conquered all of Bosnia and ruled it. Goldstein, this time, did not dismiss the report- but has hastened to add that Krešimir's rule had been-it must had been- short. These passages (and much, much more) show that Ivo Goldstein is not a serious historian: he's got political agenda (mostly in denigrating Croatian heritage) and his works in history have not achieved the status of respectable academic books. For a review in Croatian, this is a recap:http://www.hic.hr/dom/393/dom10.htm
  • On pages 116-129 the growth of Croatian medieval state is chartered. Page 118 is on Tomislav's state, and the eastern border is, roughly, on the river Bosna-river Neretva line. True, the core Bosnia (the contemporary Sarajevo region) lies outside it- but it doesn't matter, since this area was virtually depopulated. As regards contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina, Tomislav ruled over ca. 65% of its territory. The next page shows further expansion which even crossed the Drina river and incorporated Bosnia proper (Sarajevo and Tuzla regions), while Krešimir's rule is supposed to be again on the Bosna-Neretva line, just a bit more eastwards. The author has acknowledged that there were no methods to ascertain the exact position of eastern Croatian border.
  • moreover- Serbian historian Relja Novaković has «given» Croats even more territory in Bosnia:
  • «..U prvoj polovini X veka do 30ih godina, politička granica Hrvatske prema istoku dopirala je po svoj prilici do planinskog venca koji čine planine Zelengora, Lelija, Treskavica, Jahorina, Romanija, Ozren i Zvijezda.»/In the first half of the 10th century, until the 30ies, Croatian political border to the east was, probably, the mountainous wreath composed of the mountains Zelengora, Lelija, Treskavica, Jahorina, Romanija, Ozren and Zvijezda».
  • Relja Novaković: O nekim pitanjima granica Srbije, Hrvatske i Bosne u X veku, Zbornik Fil.fak. u Beogradu, VII/1, 1963, str. 178/On some questions regarding the Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia borders in the 10th century, Philosophical faculty in Belgrade, 1963.
  • Well- this is ca. 80-90% of contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina. *So, let's recapitulate:
  • the most authoritative texts on Croatian medieval history (Tomislav Raukar, Mladen Ančić,..) put Croatian rule in Bosnia in the 10th century to covering to not less than 60-70% of contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina, and probably more
  • Goldstein is not the authority, while his mentor Nada Klaić is superseded by more contemporary scholarship (also, her «borders credibility» is not very strong- she also claimed, until her death, that Croats arrived to Croatia from Carantania/Slovenia- a quirky idea dismissed by virtually everyone)
  • some other historians (Croatian Antoljak, Serbian Novaković etc.) consider that Croatian borders in the 10th century covered more than 80-90% of the current BiH.


History

The history section is way to long. Please merge most of it to History of Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Jiang 21:39, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree. User:Efghij did that now. Cheers, Efghij! --Shallot 01:30, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Several users have already noticed that the history section appears too long (see above notes by Jiang, Efghij and Shallot).

Given that suggestion, moving non-essential text to the separate History of Bosnia and Herzegovina page is a good idea. That way, only the essential and most informative parts would remain on the main country entry for Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole, while those interested in the history will surely read more details on the history page.

With that in mind, I've tried to shorten the text of the Pre-Slavic period. Furthermore, it is probably not very useful to introduce many "tribe" names as the first thing that people will read on the history section. What's needed is a brief and informative overview without too many dates and names, some of which remain open to dispute because evidence for definitive claims about this period remains scarce. --Kelime

name

Is the name Bosnia Herzegovina made up two provinces viz. Bosnia and Herzegovina like Czechoslovakia was? Or is it a single word. Nichalp 19:53, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

There are two regions, one called "Bosnia" the other "Herzegovina", but the border between them is not fixed, for most practical purposes they are indistinct from each other. --Shallot 20:19, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. A region of the country is identified as "Herzegovina", but borders do not exist. In fact, the only reason the title of the country is Bosnia and Herzegovina and not just Bosnia is because the citiziens of historical and cultural Herzegovina want to be known. Congressional politicans ruled in favor of adding "Herzegovina" to the title of the country. User:Burning Exile 08:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Islamic Bosniaks registering among Yugoslavs

Nikola, what evidence do you have to not include the not-too-religious people of Bosnian Muslim extraction among the Yugoslavs?

It's hard to proove a negative thing. I haven't found any useful reference when googling for "bosniaks yugoslavs" (also in native language). Nikola

I can certainly see how they could comprise at least a minor part of the Yugoslav demographic (which is why they're added last in that list, after mixed marriage people and hardcore patriots). For someone whose parents were Serbs or Croats, they could register as their nationality without the implication that they're Orthodox or Catholic, but the people born to a couple of "Muslims by nationality" simply couldn't.

They have surely comprised a part, but then so did everyone else. I don't see why would registering as a "Muslim by nationality" implicate someone's religion. In Serbia, it is often suggested that most Yugoslavs were Serbs, being the most devout to the Yugoslav idea. Nikola
Um, AFAIK it wasn't actually literally "Muslim by nationality" in Yugoslav censa, one just registered as "Musliman" when asked about nationality. This is a clear implication in my book. Serbia (and any other republic, really) is not too comparable, they have a different, much more homogenous and long-nationally-established primary demographic. --Joy [shallot]
About censa, you're probably right. However, as these are only claims, if Bosniak claims should be mentioned, Serbian should also (which don't refer only to Serbia but elsewhere and even to diaspora). Nikola
It's possible. We should probably move this whole thing into its own page (it doesn't exist now) and expand it a bit, it's not quite on topic as a footnote in this article. --Joy [shallot]
Done that now. --Joy [shallot]

Furthermore, the later census result is also indicative -- the percentage of Bosniaks is noticably larger, despite the negative factors like wartime emigration. --Joy [shallot] 00:27, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, like others haven't wartime "emigrated". Nikola 01:25, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Of course they did, but it stands to reason that the largest group emigrated the most, and also the one that was quite endangered — for many months in the war, the Bosniaks were completely surrounded both by hostile forces of the Serbs and of the Croats, they sure didn't have it easy (whereas most areas held by the other two nations at least had a link to the two nearby countries). --Joy [shallot] 21:44, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
But that would only make fleeing easier for them! It would be interesting to see some numbers (assuming that there are some). Nikola 07:56, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That's true, and indeed I know a lot of Croats did that (moved from Bosnia to Croatia during the war and never went back), but I still think that updated western European censa will show a greater increase in the number of Bosnian Muslim immigrants than other ethnicities. --Joy [shallot] 11:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Bosnia" redirect

The page Bosnia redirects to Bosnia and Herzegovina for two main reasons, I think:

  • often when the term "Bosnia" is used in modern context, the writer means .ba
  • the region doesn't have a non-stub page and is generally intrinsically linked with .ba

This, however, doesn't mean that Bosnia can't one day become a page of its own, so this redirect should be disambiguated/avoided with care. --Joy [shallot] 21:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Language spoken in .ba

The "language spoken in .ba" should be changed from "Serbian" to "Bosnian, Serbian, Croat".

BalkanSabranje

This edit by User:Gzornenplatz omitted the two other languages. It picked up a temporarily vandalized version of the content from Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina infobox, and nobody noticed it because everyone thought they were just reverting each other.
To Gzornenplatz and Cantus: these changes are no longer simply an idiotic waste of your own time and effort, they're harmful to these innocent bystander pages, mkay? --Joy [shallot] 18:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the Brcko District

The claim that the Brcko District is not part of either the Federation or Republika Srpska might de facto be true (that is how things are run on the ground), but de iure it is false. If the Brcko District is not part of either entity, this would imply that the District is in fact the third entity. This would be a major breach of the general framework of the Dayton peace agreement (and the constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina), which states that the country is internally composed of only two entities. Also, the Brcko District as 'not part of either entity' would make the territorial formula agreed at Dayton (49% of Bosnia-Herzegovina as Republika Srpska, 51% as the Federation) unworkable. OHR, Office of the High Representative (http://www.ohr.int), provided a clarification on the status of the Brcko District, stating that the District is in fact a condominium of both entities. This means that the territory of the District is shared by both entities, although the entities exercise no executive power there. In other words, the Brcko District territory is both Republika Srpska and the Federation. Technically, this would apply to the whole territory of the District - in that way, there is no third entity, and 49-51% formula is (somehow) preserved. That said, it should be pointed out that the Brcko District was proclaimed on the whole territory of the prewar Brcko municipality. According to the Dayton map, 42% of the prewar Brcko municipality (including the town of Brcko) ended up in the Republika Srpska, while 58% of the prewar Brcko municipality ended up in the Federation. Although the Brcko District was proclaimed in 1999, IEBL (Inter Entity Boundary Line) within its territory was never officially abolished; IEBL plays no administrative function within the District, except to mark the line beyond which the Bosnian Serb Army (Vojska Republike Srpske) traveling through the District can not go (and vice versa for the Federation Army). Thus, it remains unclear how the entities hold the condominium over the whole District if the IEBL still exists on the books, and the District was created out of uneven chunks of both entity's territory. Given the fact that the Republika Srpska never officially accepted the arbitration result (one of the reasons IEBL was never officially abolished), the only solution is to show the Republika Srpska territory within the Brcko District (42% of it) on the Republika Srpska entity map, but color it differently, and the same formula should be used vis-à-vis the Federation territory within the Brcko District (58% of it) on the Federation entity map. When you put all of this together, you have a map of Bosnia-Herzegovina showing only two entities but also acknowledging the existence of the Brcko District - the neutral position.

p.s.

The 'condominium' idea or the Brcko District is demonstrated by the way in which people declare themselves within the District. Citizens of the District have a right to hold entity citizenship of either Republika Srpska or the Federation, and have the right to vote on their entity's elections, although they are banned from serving in either entity's army.

Boundary inside Brčko District

If the proportion of Bosnian entities are 51%-49% and the IEBL has been theoretically preserved inside the Brčko District then how come RS has 42% and the Federation 58% of it? Does that mean that now, practically, FBiH is somewhat smaller than RS if we exclude the Brčko District? Cukor 09:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, it doesn't really matter. It's not that big piece of land, really.

Bosnia not formal protectorate

Bosnia not formal protectorate Even if there are different sources that says that, Bosnia is not formally an international protectorate. Kosovo is because of Resolution no. 1244 of the UN Security Council stated it, but Bosnia, meaning Bosnia i Hercegovina (BiH) is not formally like that. It's wrong writing that it is. Just check the dayton agreement on www.ohr.int, you won't find anything. There lots of authors that says BiH is a protectorate (see Chandler David, Faking Democracy after Dayton, Bose Sumantra, G.Knaus Travails on the European Raj), and I do agree too, but formally BiH is a member of the Council of Europe and it has a chair at United Nation, which a protectorate, like Kosovo, doesn't. Alexandra Tomaselli, law student.


Herzegovina or Hercegovina?

I have heard it referred to as "Hercegovina" Revolución 02:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. And? We acknowledge it in the intro, and on its page. --Joy [shallot] 09:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I meant the title of the article itself. Revolución 01:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Herzegovina is most common in English. Hercegovina is in Bosnian and Croatian. The title is fine--Dado 02:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Revolución 04:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Demographic

According to the census of 22 April 1895, there were 35% of Muslims, 43% of Serbs and 21.3% of Croats. Over the time, that demographic picture was changed.

Who added this sentance?

Bosnia and Herzegovina themselves are historical-geographic regions which today have no political status.

It is rediculous and ambigious as stating that any other country in the world is a historical and geographic region and because of that they don't have political status. Bosnia and Herzegovina respectively achieve their political status through Bosnian Herzegovinian political institutions. They are geographic regions and that can be explained in the secion on geography.--Dado 18:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any exact figures about any Albanian minority in BiH? Leshkuq 00:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1st Armored Division

I noticed that the para re: the 1st Armored Division was removed. I re-added and removed the book link, since I assumed that was part of the reason for removing it. Were there other reasons? Thanks. -- Dave C.talk | Esperanza 14:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please add it somewhere where it's appropriate. It simply does not belong to the summary of the country's history. History of Bosnia and Herzegovina would be a good start. This looks like something for the IFOR article. --Joy [shallot] 08:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CoA issue

Can anyone figure out why is the Coat of Arms so disproportionaly bigger than a flag. I've been trying to control its size but it does not seam to respond properly. Help. --Dado 22:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I adressed the problem, although it now takes a ridiculously long amount of time to load. Live Forever 23:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the new format for the infobox was added to this article we again have a problem with the CoA being too big. I am not sure how was this fixed last time. Please help. --Dado 04:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is a purpose of this ?

Dear Serbs and Croats,

It is an strange event to have an encyclopedia written by "anyone" who wants.

It is also strange to have history that does not comply in its esence with anything written so far. There is some admin Maru who relate himself with Catolic Church in this way or the other. It would not be bad to look at encyclopedia catolica for that gentlmen and realize the notorious lies on the page on History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, plus to ralize the idiotizam in people who say that they speak Bosniak but understand Croatian and partiali understand Serbian when difference between this so called lanuages is similar to difference in English spoken in London against the one in New York and the one in Livrerpool. However he blocked my abalility to just take a text from any outstanding world resource and correct this PROPAGANDA presented as a history.

It is the moment when people and ceratin nations after period of genocides and devastations should live with a "new world order" where history can be changed, when propaganda is superponing the facts and CNN the thousends of years of civilization in Europe. It is a time when I can be foreigner in a land of my grandfathers, my name changed, my roots, even my future, and this autorized by internet autority like he is.

It is a time when after 500 years of rule of Ottoman empire with so many genocides, persecutions, sufferings and killing of all people on the Balkan we need to live as a foreigners in our on land being classified as bosnians, having a "governor" with absolute power who came to change our names and our past and to shape our future-dezaster. To put us in a rezervoats of the past, or Bosnian Sandzak. The man who is "supposed" to "invent" a new nations, like Europe is no man land which is inhabitted by bunch of someones that need to be indentified

There is bunch of books of historians throughout a Europe and USA. There is clear agreemnet among them, among the facts of the past that Bosnia and Herzegovina was a land inhabitted by same substance that today makes Serbian and Croation people, that there is the thin line between them too. There is not better proof but the language spoken. Howere against any common sense it is this, so called ecyclopedia, where new languages will be invented and new nations established. It will be here where Croations and Serbs will be erased from the past of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where what Ottomans started will be continued.

And it will be here where we will be put in arena to fight to prove obvious to someone who has no mayor title but being apointed by someone to curve the history of the world.

Therefore this is another populistic measure of destroying the system of values build by Europe and given to the world. It will be the CROWED of us who will fight to prove proven giving in this way power to "judges of true" to sell it on the market, as CNN todays cells the "trusted news" to those who are willing to "push" more for their "truth"

By allowing this you are allowing the genocide, cultural and civilizational of Croatian and Serbian people. You are erasing their past and their future. They are, against every available document, becomaning nothing more but ortodox and catolic bosnians in the land where clear historical events show something quite oposite. Will for you Indians become Pakistanies of Hindu religion.

By participating in this way of creating the history you are crossing the thin line between making sience the mean of propaganda war

The above anon posted something on my talk page yesterday, despite the fact I've never been involved with this page. However, now that my attention has been drawn to this issue, I think I'll point out something about the above comments:
However he [Maru] blocked my abalility to just take a text from any outstanding world resource and correct this PROPAGANDA presented as a history.
As he should. We are not allowed to copy text from other resources, certainly not encyclopedia.com or anything else not licensed under the GFDL.
By allowing this [presumably meaning allowing the 'propaganda' to stay in the article] you are allowing the genocide, cultural and civilizational of Croatian and Serbian people. You are erasing their past and their future.
I highly doubt anything on Wikipedia affects genocides or past and futures of anyone. It's not a Higher Power, after all.
If there are serious NPOV issues in the current text, please feel free to bring up specific points that the editors here can help address. Shouting "propaganda" is not likely to get you anywhere. If there is issue with the article (and I'm speaking to the others here as well) then file an RFC. Hermione1980 01:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, the above poster (above me, I mean) appears to have copied his/her entry from [1]. Please do not contribute copyrighted material. Thanks, Hermione1980 01:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia and Herzegovina stub

Just to leave a note to watchers of this page that there is an ongoing vote about the form of BiH stub template here. Please vote if you're interested. Duja 08:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the country.

I have preferred to used 'Bosnia-Hercegovina', as it is very close to what the country is known as in Bosnian, Croatian, & Serbian.The use of 'Herzegovina' is derived from the German word 'Herzog', which is 'Duke'. - (Aidan Work 06:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

Hello! Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring – and with the hope of resolving this issue – you might be interested in a poll currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! Bitola | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

page is too long, history again

Why is article about history so long? it should by small, this is only general history. Also, page is too long! Boris Živ

Because Bosnia has a rich history which and the richest history in Balkans. That is the reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahahihihoho (talk • contribs) .

Any valid sugestion, instead of patetic patriotism? --Ante Perkovic 16:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Why does it need to be shorter. It is probably as long as, for example, Germany while it is equally if not more complex. Besides, Bosnian history is rather an obscure topic and not well covered in last 50 or so years and it is very delicate where even minor events had vast impact. They don't call it the Powder Keg for no reason. --Dado 17:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bosnia and Herzegovina needs more text and because of that I will write a lot more about that beautiful country.

Bosnia needs to join EU otherwise they will get into a pile of crap. Germany is the only country that can help them get stable again. MArch 21, 2007

Need comment on maps I created

Base map

Hi, everybody

I made some new municipality location maps baceuse existing ones are too small and with too low resolution. Please, comment here: Image talk:BH municipality location.gif.

--Ante Perkovic 22:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ante, Brcko district is not a part of Republika Srpska, just so you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahahihihoho (talk • contribs)

Yes, I know. I recognised that mistake. That's why I paused with making other maps, unlike user:Dado and user:HarisM. Tell that to user:Dado, he made the map I copied borderrs from. --Ante Perkovic 14:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, 250 000 died in the war, not 100 000! I have changed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahahihihoho (talk • contribs)

Yes, I see. See User_talk:Hahahihihoho#Changing_referenced_sources --Ante Perkovic 14:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Locator maps works!

Doboj is located in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Doboj
Doboj

Hi, everybody! I fixed coordinates for Bosnia locator maps! You may use ti now. --Ante Perkovic 13:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volim te BiH! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahahihihoho (talk • contribs)

The Economy

Readers could benifit from an informative and grammatically coherent economy section. At the moment I don't think current section fulfills these purposes. I can fix grammatical errors, but I cannot give the first two paragraphs any purpose. I hope to expand on Agriculture, Mining, manufacturing and forestry. Is there anyone who is capable of writing these sub-sections? --M Little 12:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)MLittle[reply]

Maps in Demographics

The "current" map in the Demographics section leads me to think that all municipalities are ethnically homogenious, which is certainly not the case. A map up to the same quality as the 1991 map would hopefully remind readers that BiH is somewhat still ethnically heterogenious.--M Little 12:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)MLittle[reply]

Moved unsourced txt

Unsourced txt largely incompatible with flow of the article

KAMENICA, Bosnia, Aug. 17 -- The bodies of more than 1,000 victims of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre have been exhumed from the largest mass grave found to date in Bosnia, forensic experts said Thursday.
Experts began digging in June 2006 near the eastern Bosnian village of Kamenica, close to the border with Serbia, where they have found eight mass graves. The team has exhumed 144 complete and 1,009 partial skeletons.

Kpjas 10:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Area - editing needed

See below <<blocktext>>

Area
- Total [[1_E10
heloo = 51,197 m²|{{{area}}} km²]] (128th)

19,767 sq mi <</blocktext>> Not sure I know how to deal with this - sorry!

Johnbibby 09:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protect

Can someone protect this page so only established users can edit it? --Emx 23:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Area

Bosnia and Herzegovina has the area of 51129 km2, as written in many books for elementary and high schools. Please be careful with this number, because the BiH borders haven't changed since 1995. --Emx 21:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniakophobia

It is interesting how Serbs promoted invented word "Serbophobia" on the internet. First they introduced the word to wikipedia, and then thousands of other scrapper sites copied content from wikipedia, and now Google yields thousands of matches for this invented word. Of course, while Bosniaks wanted to do the same, and create an article Bosniakophobia, Serbs quickly jumped and voted "NO!". And of course, attempts to create Bosniakophobia article failed thanks to Serbian activism on wikipedia! They don't use wikipedia for educational, but for their nationalistic/politic purposes. It is sickening to see Serbian propaganda and lies poisoning Wikipedia. What we Bosniaks need to do is focus more on Srebrenica Massacre article which is under attack by pro-Serbian vandals and revisionists/deniers on a daily basis. Bosniak 07:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't crosspost the same message to 20 pages. It's considered ranting. As for Bosniakophobia, it was deleted on the basis of being a fork of Anti-Bosniak sentiment and original research, not because of the intervention of Serb genocide denialist cabal. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promotion of anyone's political ideas.
I'm pretty sick of articles intended to prove a political point "poor us prosecuted by them" by means of expressing broad opinions ranting. That includes Serbophobia (hopeless POV), Bosniakophobia (rightfully deleted by AfD), Anti-Bosniak sentiment (a bit better idea, but hopelessly incomplete and stretching), Bosniak nationalism (deleted by AfD started by myself), Bosnian Genocide (what is this article meant to be about???). I can name a few more.
If you feel like you have such a point to prove, you can do it in a useful way by documenting the events and war crimes, and there's plenty of material around. Why is List of ICTY indictees outdated? Why there isn't an article about Sušica detention camp? Lašva Valley massacres? And why do you feel so inclined to apply "tit for tat" tactics? Duja► 08:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed WWII "factoids"

I know this article's mainly about Bosnia-Herzegovina as a state, but this is ridiculous.

Once the kingdom of Yugoslavia was conquered by Nazi forces in World War II, all of Bosnia was ceded to the Independent State of Croatia. The Nazi rule over Bosnia led to widespread persecution of Jewish, Serbian and Gypsy civilians. The Jewish population was nearly exterminated and roughly 750,000 Serbs died as a result of genocide perpetrated by the Croatian Ustasha. Many Serbs in the area took up arms and joined the Chetniks; a Serb nationalist and royalist resistance movement that conducted guerrilla warfare against the Nazis but then switched sides and joined them.


How many times do i read debates amongst the Serbs, (their supporters) and Croats in regards to the WWII democidal death toll in Axis-occupied Yugoslavia, as well as the role of the Chetniks? Is this paragraph supposed to be NPOV according to Wiki standards? Sounds like Serb propaganda to me, and i don't think that any propagandizing of any sort from any side is suppose to be encyclopaedic.

The numbers are disputed, but shoudlnt be to hard to find what historians say, if you cant I suggest you enter "hundreds of thousands".

Should I cite the scholarly and academic research Vladmiir Zerjavic (a Croat), and Bogoljub Kocovic (a Serb)? Otherwise "hundreds of thousands" is far too vague.

And yes Chetniks where nationalists and royalists mostly composited of serbs. Foant

Goosh, you really are useless? I know too well what the Chetnik movement stood for. I thought that i would attract replies from someone more knowledgable about WWII Yugoslavia than you. Aren't you aware that Draza had little, to no control over other Chetnik factions led by Pop Momcilo Djuic, Kosta Pecanac and Dmitrie Ljotic plus those factions collaborated to different extend to the others, even those who partaked in actions against the Axis occupiers?

Pictures

Too many of them. —KingIvan 08:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my solution. I propose that some (most) of the images from the gallery be integrated into the article. It is nonsense leaving them in the gallery when they are of good use to the article itself. I mean, look at the article, 95% of the images are MAPS!!! It is nonsense, there needs to be an addition of images directly into the article. Look at other countries, most of them aim at showing the beauty of that specific country through pictures/photographs. This article needs some work (physically). Thanks, Vseferović 03:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree with you that a lot of them would be better place throughout the article, rather than in a huge gallery at the end. But still, I don't think it would hurt to remove completely about half of the images in the article - although they could be well suited to other articles, e.g since Image:Waterfall_in_Jajce_Bosnia.JPG is already in the Jajce article it could probably be removed from this one. —KingIvan 06:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things: Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:31 (UTC)

Population census

When are the BH authorities going to conduct a population census? The last one was made in 1991, 16 years ago! A population census is to be held every decade. Even if we count the UN population census from 1996, more than 10 years have passed. --PaxEquilibrium 20:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About an excerpt from the second paragraph

“In Bosnia though, the distinction between a Bosnian and a Herzegovinian is maintained, parallel to ethnicity.”

Sorry, but there is no evidence or source here in the article that make these claims plausible or true.--MaGioZal 07:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not needed for common knowledge things like that.--Methodius 12:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are not using sources then let me explain. If a Bosniak (Muslim), who is from the region of Herzegovina, calls himself or herself a Herzegovinian he or she does it not out of nationalism rather out of heritage. They are proud to be Bosniak, Bosnian, etc. since that is official. Next, some Croats prefer to call themselves Herzegovinian since they work against the nation to further decentralize the nation (notice some, keeping strong nationalism). Thirdly, it is not very common to see Serbs calling themselves Herzegovinian since some see themselves as first Serb than Bosnian. This is what it actually means. It is not needed for the article, since it is pointless. Might I say I recognize both, but Herzegovinian is not on the census, so there is no reason to mention this. Thank you, Vseferović 02:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you have a very strange attitude. Bosniaks do same thing as Croats (call self Herzegovinian), but Croats do it for nationalism, and Serbs avoid it for nationalism?!! Do you even meet one Herzegovina Serb or Croat in your life (I see you are American high school student on your page)? How do you know Croats are nationalists, or Serbs do not to be Herzegovinians? You read it in Avaz or Oslobodjenje (on the internet of course)? If you know anything about Hercegovina, you know a lot of Hercegovnians are proud of this AND their nationality.--Methodius 10:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports

Responding to Hadžija's edit summary, "per NPOV and OR? what is biased about mentioning a fact. and you're using such a narrow definition of OR you'd probably consider rewriting something from a source OR)"

I'm happy to explain. NPOV is not just about outright bias of sources and information, but bias in the choice of sources and information. See WP:WEIGHT. Given this is an article is about Bosnia and Herzegovina, the information, "all of whom represent either Serbia or Croatia," is irrelevant. The information doesn't belong in the article.

As for OR, I'm concerned that the information, besides being off topic, is being added specifically to promote a point of view. See Wp:or#What_is_excluded.3F.

If someone can find a reliable source that presents the same information in a similar fashion, then we can discuss the issue further in regard to that source. --Ronz 21:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That it's irrelevant is your POV - it implies that they represent BiH.--Ploutarchos 23:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not my pov. It's how we apply NPOV and avoid OR. What specifically makes it imply they represent BiH? --Ronz 00:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is the default assumption, that is someone is from X he will play for X, which is notably not the case.--Hadžija 00:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bosnia_and_Herzegovina&oldid=131670127"