Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina/Archive 1

Splitting Bosnia and Herzegovina?
Wouldn't the best solution for an enduring peace be the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Bosnia and Herzegovina seems to be a smaller version of Yugoslavia with similar problems. The province Bosnia and Hercegovina seems to be an anchronism out of Ottoman and Austrian empire times which never worked. And one sees the same nations and their allies pitted against each other out of the same anachronostic interests. Wouldn't the best solution be to split Bosnia and Hercegovina between Croats and Serbs and give the Muslims (or however the formerly muslimised Croats and Serbs call themselves due to Tito) a state of their own? One of the reasons why some people are still holding on to Bosnia and Herzegovina is that they believe to be able to cut out a larger territorial claim under it s current framework in the long run as the numbers of Croats is declining and the numbers of the Serbs and Muslims are growing.

The nature of the borders between Bosnia and Hercegovina and Croatia are unique in the world (apart of Senegal, India and Bangladesh whose colonial borders are also arbitrarily artificial ones carved out in a day and Tadschikistan whose borders were carved out by Soviets). One notices quickly that the current border is an artificial one. The only reason why the provinces Bosnia and Hercegovina weren't restored to Croatia at the Berlin Congress in 1815 by the Autrian empire was to weaken the Slavic side in the Habsburg monarchy.

Muslims a nation?
Evreybody knows that Muslims refers to religion. How can "muslim" be a nationality? Is there a nation called "catholics"? The concept of muslim nationality was invented by Tito during the Yugoslavian times and isn't older than 55 years. It was invented in order to weaken the Slavic nationalities especially the Croat one in order to strengthen the new Yugoslav state. Of course also a Croat and a Serb can be a muslim, just as a Croat can be an orthodox and a Serb a catholic. Also the word Bosniak refers simply to a region and not to a nation. A Serb can be a Bosniak just as much as a Croat or a so called "Muslim" can be a Bosniak. The fact is that the so called "Muslims" of today are formely Croats and Serbs who were muslimised often by the use of force and threat of punishment during the Ottoman times. And due to the vast amount of money by states like Saudi Arabia and the interests of some other European states the "Muslim-concept" is reinforced today. That is why many "Muslims" today declare themselves as such.


 * "muslimised often by the use of force and threat of punishment during the Ottoman times." Is this the reason you have non-Muslim Croats, Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks today even though they lived under the Ottoman rule for hundreds of years?! Please be objective a little bit. I am sure there were cases of "use of force" but overall the Ottomans practiced an unparalleled tolerance towards its non-Muslim subjects. While Jews and Muslims were being expelled from Christian Spain, or members of certain Christian denominations -such as Huguenots- were persecuted by the Church, the Ottomans in general embraced religious plurality. Therefore, this "use of force" argument is a fallacy and wishful thinking. 71.103.1.201 (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)-Ur

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)


 * 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 emocratic 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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)


 * 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 Kati&#269;i&#263;, as well as younger historians like Mladen An&#269;i&#263;, Milko Brkovi&#263; 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 &#269;itavu 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


 * much more serious is academician Tomislav Raukar (http://www.hazu.hr/Akademici/TRaukar.html), whose «Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje», 1998, is considered a landmark in Croatian medievalistics. For a review on the site of the Sarajevo Instite of history, see:http://www.iis.unsa.ba/prilozi/30/30_prikazi_hrvatsko.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 Novakovi&#263; has «given» Croats even more territory in Bosnia:


 * «..U prvoj polovini X veka do 30ih godina, politi&#269;ka granica Hrvatske prema istoku dopirala je po svoj prilici do planinskog venca koji &#269;ine 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 Novakovi&#263;: 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 An&#269;i&#263;,..) 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 Klai&#263; 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 Novakovi&#263; etc.) consider that Croatian borders in the 10th century covered more than 80-90% of the current BiH.


 * So, it's somewhere between 65% and 85% of B & H. I guess it's more than enough for a revert. And, as far as historical sources are concerned- this is also more than enough:Talk:History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina Mir Harven 19:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

so as long as you point to some reference, no matter it beiing nationalistic piece of shit its ok?

Poor Bosnia, stuck between two idiot countries, poor poor Bosnia I really feel bad for it

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)

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 &#91;shallot&#93;


 * 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 &#91;shallot&#93;


 * Done that now. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

Furthermore, the later census result is also indicative -- the percentage of Bosniaks is noticably larger, despite the negative factors like wartime emigration. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   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 &mdash; 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 &#91;shallot&#93;   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 &#91;shallot&#93;   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 &#91;shallot&#93;   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 &#91;shallot&#93;   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)


 * 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 &#91;shallot&#93;   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)


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

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 14:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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 &#91;shallot&#93;   08:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

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)

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. H e rmione1980 01:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * On a side note, the above poster (above me, I mean) appears to have copied his/her entry from . Please do not contribute copyrighted material. Thanks, H e rmione1980 01:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

To the Person that wrote the letter "dear Serbs and Croats", I agree with everything you say. And just so you know, Croatian and Serbian weren't always similar languages...Croatian was made 300 years before Serbian...think about what tha means about the Serbian language, and what it was derrived from....

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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
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)

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)

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 --Ante Perkovic 14:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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)

Area - editing needed
See below < >
 * Area
 * - Total	[[1_E10
 * heloo = 51,197 m²| km²]] (128th)

19,767 sq mi < > Not sure I know how to deal with this - sorry!
 * Johnbibby 09:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

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)


 * 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)

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. &mdash; King Ivan  08:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash; King Ivan  06:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
 * which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

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)

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)

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

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)

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.

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)


 * That it's irrelevant is your POV - it implies that they represent BiH.--Ploutarchos 23:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

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


 * Seems like that's just your pov. Find sources and policies supporting your viewpoint, otherwise let's keep it on topic and avoid violating the policies I've identified. --Ronz 15:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Just your POV"? LOL To be honest, I still don't get how it can POV to state a fact like that. What's POV is deleting it - selective censorship.--Ploutarchos 17:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. You're arguing to violate NPOV and OR based only on your personal viewpoint.  Please read WP:CON and WP:DR. --Ronz 17:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. You're arguing to violate NPOV and OR based only on your personal viewpoint (that's it's undue weight). You read WP:CON and WP:DR.--Ploutarchos 17:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've explained how it violates NPOV and OR. --Ronz 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged this section of the article with NPOV. It could probably be moved to the top to indicate the entire article. --Ronz 17:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Should the following be removed because of the same reasoning, "For example Mario Stanić and Mile Mitić were both born in Bosnia, but choose to play for Croatia and Serbia respectively?" --Ronz 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ronz, you demonstrate a blatant ignorance of basic policy. WP:WEIGHT pertains to how widely a view (a theory) is held, not whether a fact is notable enough to be mentioned. If something is undisputed, such as X plays for Y, then WP:WEIGHT is not relevant. If you actually read the policy, it all about allocating space to views/theories proportionately based on how widely they are held. You wouldn't discuss a crackpot fringe theory on a particular topic as much as the mainstream view, you wouldn't allocate more than a few lines to it. WP:OR is about new theories not found in mainstream scholarship, and again is irrelevant to facts. Unless its actually disputed that those people actually play for those countries, those policies are irrelevant and you shouldn't have brought them up. Also, you keep going on about a "POV". What POV could including them possibly promote?--Ploutarchos 18:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong, and stop with the personal attacks. Please apologize and strikeout or remove the attack.
 * Meanwhile, I'm waiting for you to cite policy or a guideline, or provide a source for your personal perspective. --Ronz 18:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you're now talking about inclusion of what you deem to be facts, WP:NOT (especially WP:NOT) might also apply, but I'll wait until you cite a policy or guideline in support of your perspective. --Ronz 18:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've come up with a compromise. If anyone disagrees, please explain why before changinging it. --Ronz 15:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this should work. Thanks, Vseferović 16:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

ICJ ruling on genocide
The article currently reads that:
 * "It is also notable that Bosnia and Herzegovina sued Serbia and Montenegro for the act of genocide [2], and that the International Court of Justice ruled that the Serbian state could not be held responsible for the mass killing, or complicity in the act.[13] The ICJ did find them at fault for not preventing the genocide."

What should be stated here is that the ICJ did not find that there was wider genocide in Bosnia (ie outside of the Srebrenica massacre). Instead, I think we should cite the Wiki article on the issue, which says:
 * "In its verdict, the Court found by 13 votes to 2 that Serbia had not committed or conspired to commit genocide.[2] It also concluded by 11 votes to 4 that Serbia was not complicit in genocide.[2] It did however find, by 12 votes to 3, that Serbia had violated the obligation under the Genocide Convention to prevent the genocide that occurred at Srebrenica."

It seems a lot more precise. Osli73 13:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No it is fine just as it is. The article is not about the ruling, it should not go into specific details as it strays from the topic. Vseferović 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Muslims by nationality vs. Muslims by religion
The user 85.94.147.171 changed legend under ethnic maps from 1991 and 2006 from “Muslims by nationality” to “Muslims by religion”. It doesn’t make sense, we are talking about ethnic maps – not religious one. For 2006 it should be renamed to Bosniaks. For 1991 the word Muslims should be enough, or eventually “Muslims by nation” which is oxymoron. --N Jordan 02:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody commented, I replaced “Muslims by religion” with “Muslims by nationality” for 1991 and "Bosniaks" for 2006. --N Jordan 17:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Civil war
I won't change anything now, but it's said "A civil war" although there was no civil war in Bosnia (more than 60+% people believes this in Bosnia) -- and this term is not for article which represents a "Neutral point of view". Maybe there are no so widely accepted evidences/proofs of aggression, but also there are no many proofs for "Civil war". I think it should be "War 1992-1995" or sth. like that. I hope you'll correct this :) --Ibrahim, Bosnia

Education
I've recently edited the Education section. However, an anonymous user seems to persist in reverting to the previous version. The problems with it are: CheersOsli73 07:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) no sources/references (other than the ones I have entered)
 * 2) insists on mentioning Nobel prize winner as an example of a high level of education - the Nobel prize in literature has very little to do with higher education and Vladimir Prelog may have been born in Bosnia and Herzegovina (but during the AustroHungarian empire), but left Bosnia as a young child (he worked and lived in Prague and Zurich).
 * 3) claims that many Bosnians have left and now work in "high-tech, academic and professional occupations" in Europe, N. America and Australia. Again, this is completely unsourced. How do we know that it is "many" and not "some" or "few"? How do we know that they're mainly represented in "high-tech, academic and professional occupations"?
 * 4) several other WP:OR comments about the "Bosnian diaspora" and need for reform in the educational system, all unsourced.

To attempt to address the probelm with WP:OR and lack or sources in this article I'm listing a number of sources available on-line which could be used. Feel free to add.Osli73 07:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Central & Eastern European Education Directory, description of Bosnian education system
 * Library of Congress (USA), links to Bosnian education resources
 * OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, on reform of the education sector
 * BBC, article on multi-ethnic school project
 * Encyclopedia Britannica online, education in BiH
 * Nations Encyclopedia, education in BiH

1991 Map
The 1991 map sucks. I will upload the real one made by the university of belgrade's geography department. Can't do it now though, but I will try to soon. (LAz17 04:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)).

Fair use rationale for Image:307514940 7ac3e8aa14-1-.jpg
Image:307514940 7ac3e8aa14-1-.jpg 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 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 01:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

New coins realesed in 2005
In 2005 two new coins (of 5 KM and 0.05 KM) where released. The picture of the legal tender coins should be replaced with a newer one.

POV edits
These edits by User:69.209.226.2 and User:77.77.194.14, as well as  by User:213.240.3.139 all seem highly pov. I encourage editors more expertise on the subject to edit them so they're verified and neutral. --Ronz 02:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)