Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina/Archive 2

Official name of country
Please see http://www.ustavnisud.ba/public/down/USTAV_BOSNE_I_HERCEGOVINE_hrv.pdf - there it reads that the name of the country is "Bosna i Hercegovina" without "Republic" or anything else. This is what was signed into law with the Dayton Agreement in 1995. "Republika/Republic of" should be removed from this wiki page. 69.207.134.22 22:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read carefully you would notice that under Kontinuitet (Continuation) it says Republika Bosna i Hercegovina, ciji je oficijelni naslov od sada "Bosna i Hercegovina"... – which most probably suggests to me that the official name is the Republic of B & H with B & H being used as a shortened version used throughout the document so that things do not become too cumbersome. I'm not sure about this, though, as it is a bit ambiguous - as is the English translation, which in fact seems moreso to suggest that it is not an abbreviation (but Croatian naslov od sada seems to pretty strongly suggest that it is only in reference and not an official name -- unlike in the Croatian Constitution where Republika Hrvatska is relatively short, adding the Republika to B & H makes it considerably more cumbersome to an already long name.


 * Britannica says that the official name is the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (2008 Ultimate Reference Suite, and also: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9110558 -- though the online version does not explicitly state it as official, unlike the CD-ROM version but it definitely directly and unambiguously implies it at the start of the article). This I also consider strong evidence.


 * I don't know, really. Actually on looking at the previous army name Army_of_the_Republic_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina and the current one Military of Bosnia-Herzegovina and also the insignia of the former, it seems most probable that Britannica is wrong and that at initial proclamation of independence B & H was the Republic of B & H but now it's just B & H following Dayton. Hmmm. Seems that naslov od sada might be a reference to a renaming. ? Moralshear666 (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "oficijelni naslov od sada" literally means "the official title henceforth." The fact that it states that R BiH's now official title is just BiH is a good indication to me that the article refers to the name of the country and not to the reference of the country in the rest of the Constitution (note that Article I, paragraph 2, it reads "Bosnia and Herzegovina is made up of two entities: Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska (hereinafter "the entities). There is no such "hereinafter" explanation for name "Republika Bosna i Hercegovina." The English version of the Constitution reads: "The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the official name of which shall henceforth be "Bosnia and Herzegovina." - that's pretty clear to me there.


 * Also, note that the actual title of the constitution is "Ustav Bosne i Hercegovine" not "Ustav Republike Bosne i Hercegovine." The only time "Republika" is mentioned is in Article I, paragraph 1 Kontinuitet, which to me serves a purpose of renaming the country. If you take a look at the Bosnian version of the Constitution, there it reads "zvanično ime od sada" - ime meaning "name" as opposed to the Croatian naslov which semantically is closer to English "title" than "name." In any case, the whole Kontinuitet article to me reads as an explanation of "Republika Bosna i Hercegovina" now being known as "Bosna i Hercegovina," especially since it also states that "may keep as Bosnia and Herzegovina membership [of the UN] and seek membership in organizations within the UN and other international organizations." I am rather convinced that Article I, paragraph 1 is rather unambiguous.


 * Here is the complete text in English: http://www.ustavnisud.ba/eng/p_stream.php?kat=518 69.207.128.38 (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Population
The population figuers have not declined by more than a million people. Look at the lin. At the same time no one (but No. 13) is questioning the numbers. Show some evidence... Vseferović 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The very source to which the population estimate is calling itself upon and places Bosnia and Herzegovina at 126th place says the estimate is 3,935,000. (List of countries by population). On the other side I would like to see some evidence for the ridiculous inflated number of over 4,5 million. --No.13 13:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the population of Bosnia, but it seems two very well respected sources use the figure 3.9 million:
 * According to the Wiki list of countries by population Bosnia is no. 126 with a population of 3,935,000. This is according to the 2006 United Nations World Population Prospects 2006 revision.
 * The World Bank country profile for Bosnia has the figure
 * The Presidency of BiH cites 3.8 million on their official web site.
 * According to the Bosnian govt's official tourism website the population is 4,354,911 according to the 1991 census. However, it goes on to say that "Due to war-related death and migration, that number is lower now. Policy makers estimate that the country's population is now around 3.8 million people and steadily growing, and that over one million Bosnians now live abroad."
 * So, it would seem that 3.9 m is the most widely used figure. Cheers Osli73 19:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The 4,5 m figure seems to relate to the last official census, carried out before the war (at least judging from the official BiH tourism website.Osli73 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

GPD PPP
The given GDP PPP of 45 billion was to high: This years IMF number is U$D 27.410 billion: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/02/data/weorept.aspx?pr.x=80&pr.y=17&sy=2003&ey=2007&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=963&s=PPPWGT&grp=0&a= and the GDP PPP per capita number is U$D 6,884.079: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/02/data/weorept.aspx?pr.x=80&pr.y=16&sy=2003&ey=2007&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=963&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a= noclador 09:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Can someone add links? User:Gggh 17:59, 6 September 2008

Demographics again

 * “ The majority of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina are Orthodox Christians at an estimated 52%.[citation needed] There is also a large minority of Muslims and Roman Catholic”

Please remove incorrect information's:

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bih_1991.jpg

This is not official map of population census. --Edskal 14:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Name of Hercegovina and the Original Herzog
The part of the page that deals with name of the country is simply wrong in a way that it fails to name the original Herzog. Now I know that this mistake is not the only of its kind, but the section is short enough and at the top of the page, so it does warrant accuracy. Tzuppy 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Population figures
Please leave the present United Nations population figure estimate (as before), as the ones in the CIA World Factbook are misleading. Even the IMF uses a figure like the UN one to calculate GDP per capita amounts. Bosnia does not have 4.5 million permanent inhabitants, and the figure is most definitely closer to 4 million. &mdash;Insanely Beautiful 05:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Vladimir Perics incorrect map
There is a couple of things that is incorrect in his map and this is enough reason to delet it.

1. Jajce is not Croat majority city, it isnt even divided, it is now bosniak majority city and we can get this out of 2 evidence, first we have election result where bosniak parties got 60 % and from the municipality where we have 15 bosniaks out of 25 which is 60 % and gives bosniaks absolute control over the Jajce municipality and now we can do whatever we want without asking croats.

2. Brcko, cause the entity line doesnt exist anymore and every election/municipality result goes through District level, not entity level cause entities have no control over neither the city, villages or any part of the District. Also no cencus have been made and many bosniaks and croats have returned to the city. There is absolutely no evidence that serbs form majority in any part of the District, be it the city, Brezovo Polje, Palanka, Maoca, Brka or other parts.

3.In Mostar the Croats have majority in the entire municipality! Anyhow what is in force dicriminatory the statute of city Mostar vexedly terefore that for town council the Croats town councillors take as a reference must have voters five times over the Bosniaks town councillors

4. Bosanski Petrovac cause here we get information that serbs form majority which is clearly untrue. If we go at the election result, we bosniaks form between 55 and 60 % cause no serbs are voting for SDP, and if we look at Republika Srpska even SDA got more votes than SDP and that says everyting on who the serbs are voting. In this case, we have no evidence at all that serbs even form 45 % of the population.

5. Novi Travnik. In this case you could believe croats form majority and as we all know Novi Travnik is completely divided where neither bosniaks nor croats form majority.

6. Vares. In this case you would believe bosniaks form majority but only small one and this seriously damages the map. That is untrue cause bosniaks form 65 % of the population which is exactly the number croats form in Zepce and why then should Zepce be all red while Vares be only slight greeen?

This and many more untrue and incorrect things in Perics map clearly shows that this isnt valid for a reliable page such as Wikipedia. Visca el barca 15:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopediae, and not a place to "put" your private conclusions. Please stict to the official demographic data (and as you've been told a million times election results aren't demographic). And you can not divide some municipalities in which Bosniaks don't have majority (Novi Travnik, Mostar, etc) to Bosniak and not-Bosniak parts while deeninig same rights to the non-Bosniak population in Bosniak majority municipalities. If you think of demographic division of the country under the municipality level, than you got to go from village to village...(for examples Croats around Vareš, Kraljeva Sutjeska, Novi Šeher, Guča Gora, Nova Bila, Uskoplje, Uzdol, Kostajnica near Konjic etc...) Ceha 16:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC).

Oh, you can be so damn sure that CROATS DONT FORM MAJORITY IN neither Novi Travnik or Mostar. Be so sure about that! Tawhid Jihad 22:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok crazy Arab:) What's wrong with you? Ceha 12:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am only telling the reality. Tawhid Jihad 14:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that is possible to talk to you without exclamation points. Could you give some evidence for your claims? (Ceha 16:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)).

Can you give any evidence of croats form majority in Novi Travnik/Mostar without your horrible crusader nationalism? Tawhid Jihad 21:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Look Tawhid, please do not mention nationalism and stop being paranoid. Here are links for that data, you could google it out, or look it on wikipedia.... Where are sources for you claims? Ceha 08:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

First of all those maps doesnt show anything, and in the federal estimation can you give any source for demographics cause I have looked in that site about 5 times and I still cant see any demographic information?

First of all, in Novi Travnik the situation is completely divided like in Mostar. Tawhid Jihad 18:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Also in Jajce bosniaks form 60 % of population, and are in majority just like in Bugojno, Donji Vakuf, Gornji Vakuf, Fojnica, Northern Konjic, Hadzici, Travnik, Zenica, Visoko, Breza, Ilidza, Ilijas, Kakanj and in other parts of central bosnia like in Gromiljak,Brestovsko and other parts in northern Kisljak municipality, and in many parts of Busovaca, Novi Travnik and Vitez. Tawhid Jihad 18:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorce your data. Everything you just said here are just unchecked claims without verifible source. Map shows ethnic percentage on municipality level. If someone would speak about village level, then you would get something similar to 1995-front line borders (with some corections in Kraljeva Sutjeska, Vareš, Novi Travnik, Travnik, Bugojno, Jajce, Konjic, Mostar, Stolac and Tuzla) (or better say most of divided municipalities). But I don't get you. What are you traying to prove? That more Croats have fled from mixed areas that Bosniaks? That more Croats were ethnicly cleansed? If you want to talk about ethnical divisions try or prewar situation:) Ceha 22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

I am trying to say that it is no coincident that croat parties got 70 % of the votes in Jajce in year 2002 while bosniak parties got 60 % of the votes in year 2006. That is no coincident or a massise vote campaign coordinated by bosniak refugees from around the world. No, rather that is the situation today and that is the current reality.

And it isnt a cooinsident that exactly 50 % of the land in Mostar municipality belong to east mostar where over 90 % are bosniak and it is not a massive bosniak diaspora campaign that made the municipality level in Mostar divided exactly.

Also as for central bosnia, yes you got ethnically cleansed, and this time succesfully cause now there are around 90 000 croats in central bosnia canton and around 150 000 bosniak and now when Jajce, Donji Vakuf, Bugojno, Gornji Vakuf, Fojnica and Travnik are bosniak majority in that canton, you croats cant even manage to have majority in Novi Travnik, Vitez and Busovaca.

That is the current reality and even if you form 55 % in Vitez and Busovaca that doesnt change the fact that 55 % isnt enough to be counted as "majority". Tawhid Jihad 00:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If we go for the election result and municipality formation (which is the only information we got right now) then we can get this municipality demographic result for the municipalities in central bosnia canton (will not count other central bosnia municipalities).

Jajce = Bosniak 60% - Croat 40 % Donji Vakuf = Bosniak 99 % - Other 1 % Bugojno = Bosniak 80 % - Croat 20 % Gornji Vakuf = Bosniak 65 % - Croat 35 % Fojnica = Bosniak 35 % - Croat 65 % Travnik = Bosniak 78 % - Croat 22 % Novi Travnik = Bosniak 49-51 % - Croat 49-51 % Vitez = Croat 55 % - Bosniak 45 % Busovaca = Croat 53 % - Bosniak 47 % Kiseljak = Croat 89% - Bosniak 7 % Kresevo = Croat 95 % - Bosniak 5 %

This is as I pointed out the only reliable information we got since there is no government information, no cencus and thats why we got only how the municipality is formed ethnically and how the election result ended.

As we see bosniaks form absolutely majority in all important municipalities along Vrbas, all the way from Vranica to Vlasinje in Jajce, we control the entire Vranica mountain area from Fojnica to Gornji Vakuf, Vlasic mountain in Travnik, we controll the 3 biggest cities in the canton which is Travnik as the biggest city and as its capital, Bugojni as the second biggest and Jajce as the third biggest city.

This clearly shows that you croats got nothing, even in the municipalities you are majority in you are majority only by 55 % with Kiseljak and Kresevo as exception and the only completely divided municipality in the canton is Novi Travnik.

And as for the rest of central bosnia municipalities, we all know they are pure bosniak as Zenica, Kakanj, Visoko, Breza, Ilidza and so on. No croats at all. Tawhid Jihad 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Croats are one of the constituive nations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. BiH is surrounded whith Croatia on 2/3 of its borders. Žepče is a central bosnian municipality in which Croats have majority. Usora also. There are Croats in Vareš (Daštansko) and some of them are still existent in Kraljeva Sutjeska (that is Kakanj municipality). As I said before, you cannot draw a line and say if some nation has more than 65% than the whole municipality is of that nation, and if it is less than it will be divided. If someone would change municipal borders than every village is going to be counted, and compared to its 1991 national status... Ceha 08:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC). Also this is an encyclopediae. There are no "we" in this matter. Try to be objective and applay the same rules to other nations as you apply to your own. And all of your data is based on the election results which under wikipedia rules have no demographic meaning.

Haha, you are the one who are not objective!

And what has Croatia to do with the demographics in Bosnia? Cause even if you are constitutional in Bosnia you are a minority, cause if you make up 11 % of the population then you are a minority whatever the law says.

As for Zepce it is just as croat majority as Fojnica, Vares, Jajce or Gornji Vakuf. But dont forget that Zepce is a part of Zenicko dobojski kanton which is 90 % bosniak and which makes the Zepce croats be governed and ruled by bosniaks. And Usora, you cant seriously take that municipality serious?

It has barely 3000 people living there while it isnt even visible at the map.

And central bosnia area is 80 % bosniak while croats form around 17-18 % of the population. You cant seriously mean that you croats got anything important in Bosnia, you dont control any big city in bosnia, the biggest city you control is Siroki Brijeg in the rocks in Hercegovina.

And you are of course a minority, you have % just as much as we bosniaks have in Montenegro. You form 11 % of BiH population, while bosniaks form around 11 % of the population in Montenegro. Tawhid Jihad 10:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

On [] you can find definitions of objectivity. Wikipedia is not a kinder-garden where anybody can put unsorced informations. Do you know the percentige of italian speakers in Switzerland? And they are still constituve nation... Do you deny the laws of the state in which you are living and under which the Croats are equal with other 2 nations? Educate yourself a little bit. And stop refering to yourself as general spokesmen for the Bosniak nation. It doesn't look well on you>:) Ceha 12:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC).

I am objective and as a citizen of Jajce I can by all objective methods point out the fact that the center of Jajce is ethnically clean bosniak area.

I have concluded following things:

1. Jajce is majority bosniak 2. Novi Travnik and Mostar municipality is ethnically divided 3. Central bosnia is almost entirely bosniak area with small exception of Kiseljak, Busovaca, Vitez and Kresevo but all those municipalities together doesnt even form 60 000 citizens 4. Croats are constitutional in Bosnia, yes, but bosniaks are also constitutional in Montenegro especially now after the new constitution was approved which makes us constitutional and have equal rights as other people in Montenegro

As you see this isnt nationalism, this is how the situation is. Tawhid Jihad 13:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ethnically clean is a bad word:) 1. That is your subject opinion. There is no goverment (or independent) verification of your claimes. And this is encyclopedia. 2. There are large portions of both nations in both municipalities. But the last calculations of federal bureau of statistics (fzs) says that there are more Croats in those to municipalities than Bosniaks. 3.Kiseljak, Kreševo, Dobretići, Vitez and Busovača are Croat majority municipalities acording to fzs. So are Jajce and Novi Travnik. Bosniaks form majority in municipalities of Travnik, Donji Vakuf, Uskoplje,Bugojno and Fojnica as they did before the war, but now with a lot bigger percentage (in Travnik and Bugojno they are now apsolute majority-->and they were only relative before the war). 4.I didn't read Montenegro's constitution and I can not comment something without knowing basic facts. But status of Bosniaks in Montenegro doesn't have anything to do with status of Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina. For example, Montenegro could be just a Bosniak state. And that would not change status of BH-Croats. Ceha 14:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC).

Thats a lie and you know it!

First of all, the federal bureau of statistics doesnt on any page show demographic result and if you really believe in this lie, then whu dont you show source? Show source for any demographic result!

Jajce is bosniak majority, Novi Travnik is equally divided like Mostar.

Its you who wrote unsourced propaganda like croats forming majority in Novi Travnik and Jajce. You say something without showing any source or evidence, you say it says in the fzs but as I said, I have searched that page a couple of times now and never I can find any demographic result.

However the only result we got so far is the election result which CLEARLY SHOWS WHO is majority in Jajce, Novi Travnik and Mostar.

Period. Tawhid Jihad 17:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Again. Are you stupid? Elections do not say anything about the demographic data. In Uskoplje-Gornji Vakuf major of municipality is a Croat. Does that makes Uskoplje Croatian majority municipality? I've gave you the link. Try to find it.

Ceha 22:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC).

You are stupid!

You gave me a GENERAL LINK without source? Cause in that link you showed NEVER are to be seen any kind of ethnic demographic result!

Thats why we have to go after the election result which also is a very reliable result and the election result clearly shows that we bosniaks form majority in Jajce, and that Novi Travnik, Mostar, Vitez and Busovaca is not croat majority.Tawhid Jihad 10:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'm repeting this one more time (I'think is now close to a hundred:) elections are not valliable data, under wikipedia politcy. Don't use exclamation points when you are talking to somebody cause it makes you look like a 9-years old. I've given you a link of the site from wich that data was taken out when those maps were made. I'think that was about 2 years ago. Try to find correct source. And if you cant't find something I think there is even telefon number on that page so you can call fzs and check it out... No?:) Ceha 15:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Fzs has never made any estimation on ethnic background in municipalities, hence you cant give me any source. As for the jajceportal estimation, that is taken from nowhere because they do not mention any source confirming what they wrote and you can only, and ONLY find those estimation in that site and nowhere else. Tawhid Jihad 20:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Call them. It is easy:p From where did you get jajceportal? FZS made those estimations in 2005. No one mentioned jajceportal. Ceha 22:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No they didnt. And you are a liar, cause you openly lie. Tawhid Jihad 14:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

2005 on fzs pages were calculations (procjene or whateever) about ethnic data. I'm telling you to call them, because that is the truth (if you cannot find that data on the net). And you can call your mother a liar, not me. Little nazi.

Ceha 16:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Liar - a person telling uncorrect things

That doesnt mean it is bad to be a liar. Tawhid Jihad 12:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone should have read you a story about shapeard and the wolf when you was a kid and perhaps than you would know why it is bed to be a liar.

Ceha 17:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I really dont care about your opinion cause you croats have nothing, you dont control Mostar despite all atempts done during the war, all croats movin in to the city and so on.

And in central bosnia you are ethnically cleansed, and in the case Jajce you lost the power politically, not military like in Travnik, Novi Travnik, Donji Vakuf, Bugojno, Gornji Vakuf, Fojnica and so on.

And lets not forget Vares where you were majority, but now whe are majority. And also Maglaj, Zavidovici lost all of its croats. Tawhid Jihad 08:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And of course dont forget Konjic, Jablanica (especially western part of the municipality), Kakanj (especially Kraljeva Sutjeska) and other municipalities.

Dont forget that 50 % of your holy city Mostar is 96 bosniak. Tawhid Jihad 08:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Of which power are you talking about? Bosnia is one of the most undeveloped states in the whole Europe. What use is to you majority in some willage when half of population has left it? And the half which stayed would surely left if it had the chance. Time to grow up.

Ceha 08:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Its easy for you to say cause you are a christian.

I am sure muslims in Travnik, Jajce, Mostar, Sarajevo, Bihac, Brcko, Zenica, Visoko and other places are much more happy with living in muslim cities where you can here the muezzin every day 5 times and where it is normal to be a muslim then going to a christian country, with no mosques, no muezzin, rascism, anti muslim behaviour, insulting of our prophet (salla allahu alejhi we sellem). Tawhid Jihad 14:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If they were so much happier, western europe wouldn't have so much moslim belivers in it (cca 10% in France and Germany).But I don't see the point in this discussion anymore. If you were a true beliver you would sympathise with other "people of the book". Wouldn't you? Ceha 20:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I know its hard for you to accept you are cleaned out from central bosnia, and that 50 % of Mostar is pure muslim. Tawhid Jihad 08:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And statmets like this only confirm that this discussion is useless. Ceha 09:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved for discussion - Paragraph on population
This paragraph seems more appropriate for the talk page, but perhaps we can find portions of it that are fit for the article: "Around 4.3 million people lived in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991, prior to its 1992–1995 war. Knowing the current population of the country is a difficult issue due to the lack of a recent official census, and also due to large seasonal population changes in the country because of its position in Europe: between Croatia and Serbia and close to prosperous Western Europe&mdash;with the country having a large diaspora which often vacations back home to its comparatively worse-off homeland. Unsurprisingly figures fluctuate. As of February 2007 its population is estimated at approximately 4 million people by the International Monetary Fund for use in calculation of GDP per person figures and by the United Nations, and this may be considered the best de facto population indicator in opposition to more inflated figures (up to half a million more) such as those from the CIA World Factbook." --Ronz 00:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of people.
Article should have pictures of people, not just buildings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.38.122 (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubious Claim re Churches?
I'm surprised, to say the least, to learn that "There were only two Roman Catholic churches in Bosnia-Herzegovina up until the occupation of Austro-Hungary, and no Serb Orthodox churches at all." Do we perhaps mean that there were only two churches STILL OPEN AND ACTIVE AT THE TIME of the Austro-Hungarian takeover? It sounds like we're saying only two churches existed in Bosnia at any point before 1878.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed vandalism
"Boznia and Herzegovina went there sperate ways on monday the 18th of Feburaru 2008 when they claimed inderpendance!!"- from what i have heard this is not true so it will be removed- c_falco7- GMT 20:24 21st February —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.85.17 (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Banja Luka Capital of Autonomous Republika Srpska
Someone keeps changing the subtitle of the picture "Banja Luka" from "Banja Luka, the capital of Republika Srpska" to "Banja Luka, the second largest city". Obviously someone is changing it. Banja Luka is recognized by the world fact book and other internationally aclaimed sources as being the Capitol of Republika Srpska which is largly autonomous as well as the second largest city. Sarajevo's picture can gladly state "..., the capital of Bosnia". However, Banja Luka is the Capitol of the other half (state) of Bosnia. You can compare it to Richmond being the capitol of Virginia state. I took the liberty of changing it back to the previous subtitle and will continue to do so if this persists. It is only fair. Thank You!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daritto7117 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of 'Bosnian' as an adjective to describe the country and its people as a whole
Would someone from (the region of) Herzegovina still refer to their own nationality as "Bosnian"? There needs to be a look done at the adjectives established dictionaries and encyclopedias use when refering to B&H Mayumashu (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Bosnian is geographical term in an equivalent way such Herzegovinian is geographical term. Bosnian is not nationality. The Bosniak (bosnian muslims) are nationality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertinjo (talk • contribs) 02:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In Bosnia and Herzegovina there are exist three nationality: the Bosniaks (its bosnian muslims); the Serbs and the Croats. Bosnia and Herzegovina is multinational state. There is no exist one universal nationality BOSNIANS AND HERZEGOVINIANS, its ideal and imaginary.

Use of "Bosniak" as a claimed ethnicity
The term 'Bosniak' originated in the media during the war when they didn't know what to call the non-Serb and non-Croat population of Bosnia, meaning the Muslim Bosnians. This is not a recognized word or ethnicity in any written text pertaining to Bosnians. They are either Bosnians or Muslim Bosnians, but not 'Bosniaks'. It's not a real word in English and I suggest changing it. I think it was meant to refer to the original group called 'Bosnjak', which is supposed to include all people of Bosnia, regardless of ethnicity. But this word does not actually translate into 'Bosniak' in English and does not distinguish one ethnicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admira 112 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you on pills or something? Get your facts straight and read Dayton Peace Agreement, you will find Bosniaks there. It would also be beneficial for you to study Bosnian history, but of course, you should refrain from Serbian propagandist books. Bosniak (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Bosniaks are nation and public discussion abaut it is ridiculous.It is their demokratic enitlement. But ditto worth for the Croats and the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the rule: sauce for the goose is sauce for the gender —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertinjo (talk • contribs) 01:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A few things I think could be different/corrected
-First of all I think we could use a better picture for Banja Luka -Second..I could be wrong but isn't Tuzla the third largest instead of fourth? (as is stated in the caption for the Tuzla picture) and if I am wrong..where is a Zenica picture then? -Last but not least ..who cares what % a particular ethnic group inhabits in one city or another.. I mean the very notion that people bicker over such trivial matters is the reason I speak/write English today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.44.68 (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"In 1991, the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, composed of Croat-majority areas in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, declared its independence, but was not internationally recognized as a sovereign nation."

Herzeg-Bosnia never declared independence, this is very stupid propaganda.

Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia is arise from differences the military self defense organization of the local Croats(citizens of Bosnia & Herzegovina).

Language Name correction
There is no Bosnjak language. There are no Serbian or Croation language. There is one language, whatever you want to call it, that has three dialects. In the time before the breakup of Yugoslavia, that language was called Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian. That is still the best name I know of. Serbs, Croats, and Bosnian Muslims all speak the same language and have no problems understanding each other.

Slobodan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.130.225 (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian language is imaginary (ideal)language. Beacouse there is not existing the nationality the Bosnian there is not existing bosnian language. In Bosnia and Herzegovina there are existing three nationality the Croats - speaks croatian language the Serbs - speaks srbian language the Bosniak - should be speaks bosniaks language THERE IS NOT exist BOSNIAN LANGUAGE

Switzerland there is same case there are existing three nationality: the Frenchman -speaks french language the German - speaks german language the Italian - speaks italian language

THERE IS NOT EXIST SWITZERLAND LANGUAGE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertinjo (talk • contribs) 01:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

HRHB
"In 1991, the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, composed of Croat-majority areas in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, declared its independence, but was not internationally recognized as a sovereign nation."

Herzeg-Bosnia never declared independence, this is very stupid propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.45.70 (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

in 1991 the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia composed of Croat-majority areas in terrtory of B&H bacause the Croats have been attacked from ex-Yougoslavia army and local Serbs in B&H.(first attack was happen in village Ravno  in east Herzegovina that was populated with the Croats on what is conteporary president of B&H Alija Izetbegović told "its not ours war") he was thinks its war between the Serbs and the Croats. Conteporary president of B&H Alija Izetbegović are bosniak nationhood and he is abandon and let down citizens of B&H wich was croatian nationality. It is discrimination on the basis of nationality and it is the betrayal its own citizens. And Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia is arise from differences of attack on the Croats. Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia is arise from differences the military self defense organization of the local Croats(citizens of Bosnia & Herzegovina). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertinjo (talk • contribs) 11:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This line sound weird
"Despite the evidence of widespread killings, the siege of towns, mass rape, ethnic cleansing and torture in camps and detention centers conducted by different Serb forces including JNA (VJ), especially in Prijedor, Zvornik, Banja Luka and Foča, the judges ruled that the criteria for genocide with the specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy Bosnian Muslims were met only in Srebrenica or Eastern Bosnia in 1995".

I think it is to judges to decide what evidance is concrete and not on authors of wikipedia. This doesnt sound like objective view.--79.101.12.107 (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Al Qaeda
I just removed three sections that had been added to the article about Al Qaeda in Bosnia. This was way too much detail for a country article and it was poorly referenced, and likely POV. The place for material on this topic is here. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Parliamentary republic
Bosnia and Herzegovina's government type is NOT a parliamentary republic or parliamentary democracy. Please do not edit that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.126.192 (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina is multinational state and their we cannot apply rule: "One man-one wote"

Image copyright problem with Image:Manjaca camp.gif
The image Image:Manjaca camp.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:Sarajevo Olympics.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Before Dayton maps
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/BosnianSerbsBeforeDayton.GIF --Čeha (razgovor) 00:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

angel image
is there no freely availably image of the statue of the angel on the mountaintop? it's quite famous, been a couple of movies (the one with owen wilson comes to mind), surely there must be something. it would be fitting to put in the image gallery as one of the more famous images from bosnia. Lihaas (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Layout
i reordered the layout, sections, and images. please don't revert as its less cluttered, more up to wikipedia standards, and much better this way.Europemayhem (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

SS Handzar Division & Cetniks
In the article about WW2 there is absolutely no mention of the Muslim Handzar Division. The Handzar Division were known for their extreme brutality towards christians and jews. There is mention of the Ustase but no Handzar or Chetniks. When discussing BiH in WW2 lets state the facts. The muslims volunteered their services to the Ustase and the Chetniks to the NAZI's to gain the upperhand against Tito's Partizans. Massacres were committed by all sides in BiH, to blame only the Ustase is utter stupidity. The Bosnian muslims are reluctant to admit to they were under the Ustasa umbrella by trying to shy away from the past..The Mosque in Zagreb wasn't built for fun! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blago Ukradin (talk • contribs) 12:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Source?

As far as I know the Bosnian division only had volunteers because Bosnian muslims had no way of defending themselves from Ustache and Cetnik nationalists. Further, after being convinced that joining the (relatively tiny) Handzar division by a powerful muslim leader they would be in the best position to defend themselves and their families they were regardless (according to wikipedia's OWN article on the subject) sent out of Bosnia to fight for Hitler in places like France so I have no idea how they could have slaughtered Christians and Jews in the balkans from Western Europe...

So yeah, enlighten me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.33.95 (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some comments on the above:
 * the SS Handzar was a reality.
 * the true motives for the creation of the Handzar are impossible to know. Best leave that out.
 * although they certainly deserve to be mentioned I can't see that their role was so important as to warrant any lengthier description in this article. Better to leave a link.Osli73 (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Handschar_(1st_Croatian)

I am by no means claiming that they never existed. It is a known fact that they did exist, albeit in relatively minor numbers and effectiveness. In fact, Wikipedia itself has an (well sourced) article on the subject, which details much of the motive and size of the unit. Benjikthx (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Bosnia in Arabic will not be tollerated
In the past few weeks there have been many attempts to change "Bosna i Hercegovina" in Bosnian (latin) to an Arabic Script. Bosnian is not, I repeat, IS NOT an arabic language and any attempts to change "Bosnia i Hercegovina" on wikipedia in Bosnian to an arabic script will be blocked because that is a falacy and misrepresentation of the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daritto7117 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic map
Per the discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, it seems that some editors are trying to make an ethnic maps for Bosnia and Herzogovina at User:Rjecina/Bosnian census which seems to follow from this strange subpage. Just wanted to make sure the most people knew about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia
Hello im ken from uhh connecticut and i have a few to many questions about this utopia of a country.

MY FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE: When did Bosnia gain there independence?

2.) what are there current events and persuay issues?

3.) Do they use or need Humanitarism or medical aid from boss?

4.) what language do they speak?

5.) What sort of religious sects do you have in Bosnia?

6.) What is the highest Nationality?

7.) What political system do they believe in and use?

8.) What are the worst crimes of Humanitarism?

9.) Who are the most famous notable leaders?

i would like to thank you for answering my questions and concerns

love, Ken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.204.230.190 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

1. First the state (country) name is not Bosnia than state name is BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2. Bosnia and Herzegovina gain there independence in 1991 3. what language do they speak? Official language in Bosnia and Herzegovina is Croatian language,Serbian language and Bosnian language that use the muslims-bosniaks ! 4. In Bosnia and Herzegovina religions are:catholic church, islam and Serbian ortodox church 5. At most nationality in Bosnia and Herzegovina is Bosniaks muslims, then Serbs then Croats 6. What political system do they believe in and use? My personal opinion is that best political system for Bosnia and Herzegovina is Swiss confederation system 8. What are the worst crimes of Humanitarism?-the worst crimes of Humanitarism is killing civilian peoples womans and childrens, and of course ritual homicides wich made bosniaks mujahedins 9. Who are the most famous notable leaders? In Bosnia and Herzegovina each of three nationality has their the most famous notable leader —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertinjo (talk • contribs) 00:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

History
The History section is too long. We have a separate History of Bosnia and Herzegovina page, so we should reduce the length of history on this page - not eliminate, but reduce because it really is too long. (LAz17 (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).

First the state (country) name is not Bosnia than state name is Bosnia and Herzegovina —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertinjo (talk • contribs) 00:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Financial Statistics
Please update with current GDP (PPP) and (nominal) statistics. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2004&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=963&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=&pr1.x=31&pr1.y=14
 * GDP (PPP) Total: $30.419 billion, per capita: $7,618
 * GDP (nominal)  Total: $19.358 billion, per capita: 4,848

Thanks. --BignBad (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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 14:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

???????
It's a shame for a wikipedia to name my country just Bosnia. Dear God, it's Bosnia AND HERZEGOVINA. Bosnia is just a region. What would you feel like if a whole world names France as a Bretagne. Or using a name of Wales instead of Great Britain, etc.???!!!! And there are lots of other problems :
 * Here, Bosnian is equal to a Bosnian Muslim, and we are not all muslims here
 * Bosnia is often used to name just a part of the state where there is a muslim majority. Neither Croat or Serb would name himself a Bosnian, BUT EVERYBODY KEEPS FORGETING THAT THERE ARE THREE NATIONS IN "BOSNIA"!!!!!

Suggestion:use an acronym : BiH (B and H) --Sentic nm (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Republic?
Does the official name include "Republic" or not? I know this has been discussed before (and agreed on that "Republic" is not part of the official name), but can someone confirm this before changing it? Thanks.--BignBad (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

History
How does this citation belong to an encyclopedia aricle:

"Some think that it was a planned Austro-Hungarian takeover of the land called Herzegovina because many Croats from Croatia were settled there."

When someone who doesn't know much about Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina reads this, he would think that Croats were settled in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Austro-Hungarian government.

But I will give you some examples how this claim is ridiculous, here's the list: And the list goes on and on, I'll remove the citation from above later. Stürmkrieger (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * župa (smallest administrative unit of the Catholic church) of Posušje was established in 1735.
 * župa of St.Blaž in Čapljina is first mentioned in 1599. later from that župa separated župa Gabela (1853.) and župa Čerin (1864.)
 * župa Roško Polje was established in 1758.

Dayton agreements
The Dayton agreements are a total shack: Why should Croatians and so called "Muslims" share an entity? Why should the Serbs which constitute only 30% of the population get 49% of the country? Why should the Serbs who are responsible for the genocide in Srebrenica and elsewhere get any part of Bosnia?

To prevent further conflict and war- shouldn t Bosnia be divided between Muslims and Croats and the Serbs transferred to Serbia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.141.41.194 (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If the Bosnia could be easily split, the would have been no war. See pre-war maps. Dzenanz (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation of country
This pronunciation (bŏz'nē-ə-hěrt'sə-gō'vē-nə) is not in IPA. I'm not sure which language it's supposed to represent. I'm guessing it's supposed to be the English pronunciation /ˈbaz.ni.əˌheɚt.sə.goʊˈvi.nə/, but there's no "and" in there. Can anyone clear this up and put the English pronunciation and maybe some kind of chart with the Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian pronunciations? (Ejoty (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

Thanks to Kwamikagami for adding the English IPA with a source. There are two accepted pronunciations of Herzegovina though, so I added the other one with a source. Strangely, dictionary.com and merriam-webster.com don't offer any help even though they're such big names. My source confirms what I thought about the pronunciation, but there are two things I'm not sure of. In Kwamikagami's pronunciation, the second syllable in Herzegovina has the vowel /ɨ/, whereas in my source it's /ə/. This vowel need not change just because of the change in stress. I wonder if both are deemed right, and if both are used. Second, Kwamikagami has /hɜrt/ (as in "hurt") for the first syllable of Herzegovina. My source contradicts that, but neither uses IPA nor has a key for their symbols so I'm not sure if they mean it to be /hɛrt/ (with the same first vowel in "merry") or /heərt/ (with the same first vowel in "Mary") when they write "hert." I'm a Merry Mary Marry Merger kind of guy, so those two are no different to me, but exact is exact. I think we have it at least mostly right now, but it seems like there's a bit of dischord and lack of certainty in the world about the English pronunciation of this country. (Ejoty (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Would it be ok to only give the pronunciations for Herzegovina? I feel it looks rather cluttered otherwise.  We don't need to tell people how to say "and", and Bosnia is quite straightforward as well.  (Also, the use of both /ˈbɒzni.ə/ and /ˈbɑzni.ə/ seems arbitrary - isn't [ɑ] just an American realisation of /ɒ/?) Lfh (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Srebrenica genocide denial is irrelevant
There is an article on Srebrenica, where the posted comments might be relevant - appropriate links already exist to the Srebrenica page. I'm removing the genocide denial bit, as it is patently irrelevant. Boeremoer (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Destribution Map Is Wrong
The ethnic distribution map on this page is wrong. The blue section should be The Serbs (The Serbs are currently represented as Red) and The Red section shoud be The Croats (The Croats are currently represented as blue). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole1982 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone recently changed the image without changing the key. I've reverted their edit. Thanks for the heads-up. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should Serbs be blue? Why not Pink? or Yellow? Or Green? Who cares about the colors. The whole map is a mess and is not accurate.Bosniak (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

File contribution
I am including a file I believe is interesting in regarding the relation of Bosnia and Herzegovina with today's world. Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what? Zazaban (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, as nice as it looks, what are we supposed to do with the image? Are you suggesting that we include it in the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WIKI IDIOCRACY
Almost complete article on history of Bosnia is based on only two books from only two historians. And the one who has same views as Bill O'Reilly, Shawn Hennedy and Glenn Beck and American core right on issue of Serbia, Russia, and others. The other reference is Bosnian Muslim. How can encyclopedia rely on such a sources only. Like there are no historians in rest of the world, or among Serbs, Croats, Russians, Germans, Italians, French....

Now lets do small investigation on articles written by first of them:

Noel Malcolm      referenced 16 times

These are all his articles available on Wikipedia that he wrote. Common for all can be shortly summon in two words: BLOODY RUSSIANS(SERBS) "South Ossetia is not Kosovo", Standpoint, 29 September 2008      - [CRITICISM ON RUSSIA AND SERBIA] "Is Kosovo Serbia? We ask a historian" The Guardian, Tuesday 26 February 2008. - [CRITICISM SERBIA. VERY CYNICAL] "Nato must remain until the job is done", The Daily Telegraph, 2 September 2001. - [Is a job of historian to boost military actions. STRONG CRITICISM ON SERBIAN PART as usual] "Milosevic was doomed by press freedom"The Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2001. "Why we were right to bomb Kosovo", The Daily Telegraph, 24 March 2000. - [In support of illegal war against Yugoslavia(Serbia) not authorized by UN, violating UN chart and according to many leading intellectuals with false agenda]. "Independence for Kosovo", The New York Times, 9 June 1999. - [In support of war on Serbia] "Kosovo, Serbian Nationalism and Territorial Partition", HABSBURG Reviews, 10 May 1999. - [CRITICISM OF SERBIA interestingly published in Habsburg reviews... hm... name of Austrian Dinasty in big odds with Kingdom of Serbia] "Response to Amos Perlmutter's op-ed "Who Will Run Kosovo", The Washington Times, 4 May 1999. - [CRITICISM OF SERBIA] "What Ancient Hatreds?", Foreign Affairs, January/February 1999 "Kosovo: Only Independence Will Work", The National Interest, Winter 1998/99.       - [Is support of aggression on Serbia] "Kicking Kenney on Kosovo", The Nation, 16 November 1998, Volume 267, Number 16.    - [Is support of aggression on Serbia] "Kosovo's History", New York Review of Books, 16 July 1998.                         - [I could not read. But I can guess.] "Kosovo and Bosnia: three points", Bosnian report, March-May 1998, New Series no.3. - [Well in short    SERBS ARE BUSTARDS :-D] "The Past Must Not Be Prologue", Time, 30 March 1998, Vol. 151 N° 13. "The grandee and a question of genocide", Daily Mail, 6 November 1996.              - [Of course genocide was committed by Serbs. Yet if you look at statistics total loses of Bosnian Muslims where less then 3% of the population, Serbs lost 2% of population. That is quite comparable to what was real genocide when Germans killed 85% of European Jews in same amount of years and Jews inflict 0.000000001% of their loses or when grandparents of Mr. Malcolm enslaved 100% of black Americans for hundreds of years, killed 99.99% of native Americans that in retaliation kill 0.1% of white Americans. Not to mention that majority of his figures were badly overestimated, of courses on Serbian's account, and mostly denied today so that you cannot find this article on Google any more. I assume it with reasonable certainty" "Appease with Dishonor: Faulty History", Foreign Affairs, November/December 1995. "The Vlachs in Bosnia" Extract from Bosnia: a short history, 1994                   - [In denial on Serbian ethnicity in Bosnia and Slavic ancestry. Very common view among Bosnian Muslims commonly used to offend Serbs.] "The New Bully of the Balkans", The Spectator, 15 August 1992                        - [AND OF COURSE THE OLD BULLY ARE SERBS]

Well William Jr Buckley is dead! Long live William Jr Jr Buckley!

I cannot read all his crap. Just from the titles it is clear that his view does not match any among Serbian views and fully match Bosnian Muslim views. Of course Right wing Neo-Cons America praises same views.

I am not judging his right on his view but I cannot believe WIKI can consider only one source as relevant. There must be other historians who lived before 1994 and some other at that time who share very different view on the matter. I am very certain on it. Just open Britannica editions before 1990 and you will find it. Not to mention Russian, Vatikan, German, French and other famous encyclopedias There is wast majority of intellectuals in the world who opposed bombing of Yugolslavia(Serbia), like elite Jewish intellectuals of America, like Ron Paul, like Michale Moor, Noam Chomsky and bunch of European philosophers and historians. There are many that opposed separation of Yugoslavia and putting blame on Serbs only. But if you look his titles there is almost no historian who had more radical views against the Serbs than this guy.

Quoting almost only him WIKI is like C-SPAN or better called "I like to hate ...." (TODAY RUSSIA, TOMORROW: CHINA, THEN: MEXICO .....)

The other is Imamović, Mustafa  Referenced 4 times as we noted Bosnian Muslim. He for sure is sufficient for an independent view??? This would be a shame for something that call itself independent media. It is utter disaster for something that considers itself encyclopedia. Excuse me but are you really IDIOTS, not to notice that this is really kind a biased view! Who the hell administers this.

Then comes

Riedlmayer, Andras referenced 4 times I do not know much about him. He is more into cultural heritage and does not have strong impact on ideological approach of the article

And for the sake of kind a balances appearance lets put some Serbs and Croats that basically say nothing. Only one Serbian historian with no influence on article with claim on where the coronation took place Dr. Željko Fajfrić      referenced only 1 time

Same with Croatian one who just had different opinion on coronation. :-D Anđelić Pavao           referenced only 1 time

Together they say NOTHING!

This looks like a JOKE!

So basically all article with 20 references is masterpiece of Noel Malcolm and Bosnian Muslim Historian. Real example of OBJECTIVE APPROACH and pride for WIKI IDIOCRACY

And Jimmy Wales wants some money.

Let me quote John Stewart known as Daily I am not going to say this but just look what he said to Crammer (In Crammer we Trust) I say the same to Jimmy Wales (In Jimmy we trust)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.225.193 (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

--99.245.225.193 (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

1535 or 1527 instead of 1463
I'd like to propose changing the date of the "end" of Bosnian Kingdom, from 1463 to either 1527 or 1535. The former is the date of the execution of the last king, and 1535 is the date the Ottomans executed the last Crown-Prince Stjepan Berislavić (see for references). 1527 is when the Ottomans were able to form their first administration, called the Eyalet of Bosnia (check for dates). So 1463 has no relevance -- its either 1527 or 1535, but I opted for 1535 hoping that emotional types won't suffer a heart attack that way, an execution is an execution is... Regionlegion (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sports section
The sports section of the article contains some horrible breaches of WP:NPOV. For example: "Bosnia and Herzegovina has modern footballers who are taking on the world like Edin Džeko, Zvjezdan Misimović, Vedad Ibišević, Emir Spahić, Asmir Begović, Miralem Pjanić". It is also badly in need of references, if anyone is willing to help find them. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

flag
I think someone accidently made the yellow triangle light blue and then quickly changed it. However, it appears that the flag on the page is still light blue (the triangle). Can somebody fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fshoutofdawater (talk • contribs) 17:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Bosnian Flag shows up wrongly
I'm not ure if this is to do with the webbrowser I am using(Google Chrome) but the yellow part of the Bosnian flag is blue when I look at the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.73.196 (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Same for me! 174.1.48.24 (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is due to a glitch with the site probably. Some image uploader accidentally put the triangle blue. He fixed it, but for some reason the flag is messed up.--Kanzler31 (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

GDP data for Bosnia and Herzegovina
These estimates for year 2009 are made in October 2008. before financial crisis took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia and Herzegovina will face significant pressure as a result of the global financial crisis. Please don't edit that. --Gggh (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Annexation Crisis 1908-9 is in factual error.
The annexation crisis of 1908-9 is incorrect as written in this article. Please see the Wikipedia article on the annexation crisis for the correct sequence of events or see Albertini, Origins of the War, Volume 1 which has an extremely detailed treatment or Williams' more recent but less detailed account (in full agreement with Albertini's account).66.166.239.68 (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Education
»Primary education lasts for eight years.«

The linked article starts with

»Primary education lasts for nine years.«

which according to my information would be correct. You might want to have a look into that and change it. -- VonFernSeher 190.141.226.70 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hospitality
I'm concerned that recent additions to the "hospitality" section read like a tourist brochure. I don't doubt the hospitality, but would it be possible to moderate some of the WP:PEACOCK terms? bobrayner (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur and have edited it while addressing the style issue w/ the editor who put it there. Portia327 (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO
The "Hospitality" section you two have mentioned is a direct copyright violation job from this website - http://bhtourism.ba/eng/interactingwithlocalpeople.wbsp

The "Law" section just added is copy/pasted from this website - http://eff.old.cda.nl/croatia.aspx?language=en-US - except that the word "Croatia" has been substituted by "Bosnia and Herzegovina".

Also, the "Bosnian diaspora" section is a copyright violation of this website - http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Bosnian_diaspora


 * These copyright violations were all made by very recently. The user has also made copyvios on other pages recently. In addition to this, the user has changed sub-section headings to have capital letters where they are not needed, and removed requests for sources without adding any sources. Based on this I have reverted the changes made. 124.185.6.208 (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What Parts of Present Day Yugoslavia were parts of Bosnia prior to the Ottomans
When looking at the section of Bosnian villayet, I noticed that you seemed to have forgotten that most of what is present day Montenegro was part of Bosnia until Otto von Bismmarck of the Kingdom of Germany gave the land away during the Congress of Berlin. What is included in the article is lika, Dalmatia, parts of Slavonia mentioned as parts of Bosnia during the Ottoman period. What you have forgotten to do is give us a map as to how far the Sanjaks extended and you are missing one sanjak in present day Montenegro that is key to Bosnia.

The reason that Bosnia is called Bosnia-herzegowina today is because otto von bismarck added the name because it was German and because he could continue Hungarian hegemonial practices of forcing people to become this or that. Otto von Bismark wanted to say that Bosnia was a place and not a nation so that he could take more land for Croatia and the west. The 1907 decrees by the Austro-Hungarian empire followed denying the existence of bosnian nationhood and forcing the bosnians to declare themselves as croats and a decree which declared Turkish Script (Arabic) illegal and forced Bosnia to switch to Latin Script. With the coming of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, the denial of Bosnian existence continued, this was the case with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, with the independent state of Croatia, and with the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Bosnians were first mentioned in the Yugoslav constitution in 1974 and they still weren't allowed to declare themselves as bosnians because Tito forced the Bosnians to declare themselves as Muslims with a capital m (rules of Bosnian language) to differentiate the national identification from religious identification.

Today Bosnia-Herzegovina is mostly a Serb state whereby 49% of the country belongs to the Serbs and the Serbs have a right to block anything and everything in the three member presidency. This was Bill Clinton's decision when he created the Dayton peace accords. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.44.248 (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * While I might agree with everything above, your first sentence in the last paragraph is just misleading. I live in B&H and it's not "mostly a Serb state", and saying that 49% of the country belongs to Serbs is just ridiculous. It's like saying 10% of USA belongs to Mexico. "49%" is a percentage of one of the entities in the country. And off-topic (or not), don't you remember what Tito said; (try finishing my sentence) "Bosnia is not Serbian nor Croatian nor Muslim, it is ..."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.239.15.178 (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

historical map?


I found this image on Wikipedia. It seems like the name of the country was Serbia at the time... Is this realy historical map of Bosnia in 9th century? --Mladifilozof (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Why was added the comment on the map saying: "Bosnia as Serbia in the 9th century."? FkpCascais (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This map is completely uncorrect; several names shown didn't existed yet that time. --Theirrulez (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

IT WASN'T A CIVIL WAR
The war in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995 was NOT a civil war, because Serbia and Croatia attacked Bosnia as an independent country, just like the text itself says; so I think the title "Civil War" is extremely inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.51.23 (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's something correct in what you said. - Theirrulez (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Not completely true. While the Croat and Serb forces in Bosnia had some backing from Croatia and Serbia, most of the combatants from each side were from Bosnia.  Serbia sent some soldiers, while Croatia's involvement was mainly from a propaganda and weaponry stand point (with some volunteers, but no "official" involvement).  Also it is worth noting, while the Croat forces and Muslims were fighting against each other in Hercegovina, there were still some Croat forces and Bosnian Muslim forces fighting together as allies against Serbs.  It was still a "Civil War" even though outsiders were contributing to the conflict (Muslims even invited fighters from Iran and Arabia in Bosnia).  In fact, I would say that most civil wars in the world have outsiders influencing and even sending soldiers to fight (The American Civil War had French fighting on the side of the Americans, and the Spanish Civil War had forces from all over Europe).--207.236.177.82 (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense keeps ON, BUT NOW BLOWING NAZI WINGS
Section WW2 in Bosnia

After collapsing of Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 2 week war with superior in power Nazi Germany indeed Nazi state emerged called Independent State of Croatia. Indeed that new state set its goal of eliminating Serbian population that was considered major problem. Jews and Roma population were not that big in numbers but partially to please ideology of Nazism and partially for some of Croatian Nazi members own sentiments they were targeted too.

From beginning majority of Bosnian-Muslim leaders saw that war as no business they should take part in. They, however, joined it mostly to save themselves but also up to certain extent following their relative animosity towards Serbs and religious alliance that Hitler had with some major Muslim leaders in middle east. Similarly some Serbs in Serbia after 3 years of Nazi occupation, terror and news on what was happening to Serbs in Independent State of Croatia, started campaign of extermination of communists(Serbs) and Jewish people in sad attempt to gain some admiration among occupying Nazi forces and stop further devastation and extermination of Serbian people that were out of reach and protection of Serbian state, or what had left of it. It should be noted here that Serbia was occupied, torn into several pieces. Again it is very important to notice that those Serbs were not elected by people not by any authorities but by German force, what is extremely different then Croatian case were Nazi were welcomed on the streets of Zagreb as saviors from the day one, together with Pavelic's Croatian Nazi Regime. Vast documentation including documentary movies from the streets of Zagreb and German military parade are available on that subject.

Catholic church also had some stake in game with Nazi, not always with full hearth though.

Those are well known facts that even Rome has discomfort to explain in various occasions. It is also well known that Nazi Croatian and Muslim units participated on East front helping Germans against USSR.

So, Serbs found themselves in the new formed Croatian state that was set to eliminate them based on killing of 1/3, expelling of 1/3 (ethnic cleansing term is used today) and assimilation of 1/3 (conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, thus from being Serb to becoming Croat). Without any guide, structure and institution, after all prominent figures they had were killed by Croatian police and military in the first days of the war, with no front line but mixed territorially with their enemies, with no base, they started to very much self organize in numerous groups dispersed throughout the Independent State of Croatia. They had no structured chain of command, communication and logistic lines and were people in search for support from outside. It was SURVIVAL GAME of common people and peasants, it was not military campaign. All those groups sought alliance i.e membership with either illusive Partizan movement (that spend most of its time running from Nazi troops and hiding behind common people leaving them to face the anger of Nazi) or Chetnic movement (which was really not serious thing since lack of communication and command, broken in number of fragments, led by teachers, priests, and who ever was most known in area of few villages, having numerous leaders, without any common policy, strategy or goals) not for ideological pursuit but as a drowning man reaching for anything that will help him to survive. They simply wanted to be part of something bigger that will give them sense of any security so they would call themselves names of those mentioned thinking something bigger will come to their aid. These were nothing but lost people in struggle for their own physical survival, hiding in forests, caves and running from homes left on mercy of one STATE, within that STATE, where they found themselves as Indians in USA, Jews in Nazi Germany, Armenians in Turkey, at the mercy of other ethnic groups (Croatians, Nazi ones) who had every possible power over them: Military, Police, Government, Industry, Communications, Infrastructure, Logistics... all that one country have at its disposal. Muslims seeing that their situation is not bright too, willingly or/and unwillingly sided with it as I said. Serbs could only retaliate with aid of stronger guerrilla movement in Serbia on the East part of the Independent State of Croatia where Muslims were mostly living, not Croatians. This just aided there bad position and Muslim stronger support in Croatian slaughter. It was horrible act. But it was not the same thing as act of Independent State of Croatia that tried and in less extent did to Serbs the same that Nazi Germany did to Jews and planned and in similar extent did to Eastern Slavs (predominantly Russians and Pols) and Roma.

Partizans, who mostly operated in areas predominantly inhabited by Serbs (Drvar, Kozara area, and even Jajce) did nothing but disturbed Germans, not enough to change a course of war by the smallest step (war would have same course regardless of whatever they were doing), but enough to provide Croatian Nazi state enough excuse to ask Nazi-German permission for further slaughter of Serb population, shocking even some of Nazi officers with brutality and commitment (there are documents and letters reporting it to Berlin). Chetnics and Partizans with their retaliations galvanized Nazi and anti Serb sentiment even among other Croatians and Muslims who were not initially overwhelmed with Pavelic's ideas. However, it was clearly act of DESPERATE PEOPLE like Indians unselected killing of whites as reaction to their own extermination.

If WW2 had lasted just 2-3 years longer, or if USSR had lost the war, they would have been completely exterminated!

I AM NOT SURPRISED THAT WEST WAS FIRST HIDING THEN USING (UTILIZING) NAZI LATER. EVEN COMMANDER OF JASENOVAC CONCENTRATION CAMP, FORTH BIGGEST IN WW2 IN EUROPE, WAS PROTECTED FOR 55 YEARS TILL THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH LIVING MUMMY HAVING SUCH AN "UNPLEASANT" TAG. IT WAS IN 2000 THEY FINALLY PUT HIM ON TRIAL. YOU CAN EASILY FIND HIS PICTURES ON INTERNET LAUGHING AND PROUDLY SWEARING ON CROATIAN STATEHOOD SYMBOLS AS SOMEONE WHO GOT IT AFTER YEARS OF WAITING.

LAMENTING ON SERBS JOINING SOME "FORCES" IS LIKE THEORIZING FAT INTELLECTUAL IN COMFORTABLE CHAIR TALKING ON AFRICAN STARVING PEOPLE AGRICULTURE, ITS ORGANIZATION AND GOALS ON SOME LAND IN THE MIDDLE OF DESERT, WITHOUT ANY IRRIGATION AND HOPE. SUCH A PEOPLE ACT SIMPLY LIKE: "WHAT EVER, JUST DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING, JUST SURVIVE"!!! THEY ARE NOT PATTON OR MONTGOMERY!!! ''' THIS IS HORRIBLE. THIS IS NAZISM AT A GLANCE! THIS IS WIKIPEDIA!!!''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.34.101 (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Tara river?
Tara river is in Montenegro, not in B&H. It should be removed from the article >tourism in Bosnia> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.228.65.46 (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
A big uprising from 1875. is not mentioned at all (Herzegovina Uprising).

The article says: Serb attempts to foment agitation followed, advocating a unified South Slavic state, ruled from Belgrade. This gained little support amongst most of the population of Bosnia Herzegovina, and only found fertile ground with disaffected portions of the Orthodox minority.

This assertion is untrue. Orthodox population was a relative majority in B&H at that time. Support for unification with Serbia was widespread, as demonstrated in Herzegovina uprising, before, and after anexation crisis, all the way to Sarajevo assasination, and 1918.

Also, what is the Bosnian nation? I can understand that some may expres that sense of identity now, but such a concept didn't exist before WWII.--Jaksap (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Interests in keeping the state united vs interests in dividing it
The article could use a section that says who has which interests (monetary or otherwise) in keeping Bosnia and Herzegovina in the status quo, who in in furthering unity, and who in dividing the state into fully independent entities (which might or might not join the neighboring states of Serbia and/or Croatia). I mean both internal interests and those of foreign entities such as US, EU, Russia... Thank you. -- 77.7.142.163 (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"Pre-Slavic"
This is not really Bosnian history. It is just re-hashing Illyrian history which is not really specific or anythign directly related to Bosnia 152.76.1.243 (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions and Answers
Q: When looking at the section of Bosnian villayet, I noticed that you seemed to have forgotten that most of what is present day Montenegro was part of Bosnia until Otto von Bismmarck of the Kingdom of Germany gave the land away during the Congress of Berlin.

A: It was not part of Bosnia, but Ottoman Empire. Bismmarck did not give or take anything but people fought for their freedom and it was acknowledged by major powers (as in history it always must happen for small to get their state). This is HISTORICAL NONSENSE of high magnitute. Bosnia was nothing but imperial province, it was not country and nothing was given or taken. People there in Montenegro (what matters the most) never considered themselves as Bosnians. Actually nobody in Balkans have ever cosnidered her/himself Bosnians as nation till way later times. (This is an obvious lie, because the medieval people of Bosnia called themselves "The good Bošnjans", but interestingly most orthodox Bosnians did not call themselves Serbs until 1878 and the arrival of Austria-Hungary) when will you muslims understand that bosnjan is teritorial term ..... bosnjani, rasani , zecani are all teritorial terms ..... they are as we are SERBS

Q: What is included in the article is lika, Dalmatia, parts of Slavonia mentioned as parts of Bosnia during the Ottoman period. What you have forgotten to do is give us a map as to how far the Sanjaks extended and you are missing one Sanjak in present day Montenegro that is key to Bosnia.

A: Jesus. Sanjak as a word and territory DID NOT EXISTED BEFORE TURKISH invassion. There was long history of the area before Turks come to balkans. The fact that Ottomans liked converts to Islam, more then other Serbs and Croats who remain Christians, and shaped the territory of the are to please their afiliactions is not something that anyone can use as claim.

Q: The reason that Bosnia is called Bosnia-herzegowina today is because otto von bismarck added the name because it was German and because he could continue Hungarian hegemonial practices of forcing people to become this or that.

A: Heregovina existed way before Otto Fon Bizmark. Bosnia is slavic term marking one area, never one nation. Bismark on the contrary to aid Austrians wanted to divide Slavas and block increase of Russian influence.

Q: Otto von Bismark wanted to say that Bosnia was a place and not a nation so that he could take more land for Croatia and the west

A: He gave shit about Croatia. Croatia was just a province rulled by Austrians. Why would Bismark fight for what Slavic peasants want and Craotians and Serbs were servants and peasants at the time. JESUS, way on the contrary it will be Austrians that wanted to create Bosnian sentiment to introduce further division and reduce the rezistance of Slavs.

Q: The 1907 decrees by the Austro-Hungarian empire followed denying the existence of bosnian nationhood and forcing the bosnians to declare themselves as croats and a decree which declared Turkish Script (Arabic) illegal and forced Bosnia to switch to Latin Script.

A: How can Arabic script be a proof of "Bosniana" nationhood? Are you aware what are you talking about. It only can be proof that this nationhood never existed since no Arabs lived in Balkans prior arrival of Turks. Austrians wanted latin script because they were using it and Catholic Christianity because this is what they were. What it shows is what everyone in tha Balkans knows. After libertarian of Serbia, Montenegro and earlier conquest of Croatian lands by Austrians, converted to Islam Serbs and Croats were forced to concentrate in last stand of Ottoman Empire (talking on areas dominated with Serbo-Croatian Language), Sanjak of Bosnia. Gaining high numbers in Bosnian Sanjak and aware of failing Ottoman Empire and proximity of the end days for their priviledged status, being faced with new nationalistic Europe (sovereignty based on nation rather then monarch), they start claiming Bosnian nationhood. So clear because all other converts, Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians were facing revenge and exposure, as well as Serbs and Croats in liberated territories, they find escape exit in claiming the NATION. Austrians did not denied anything but Turkish sentiments because they claimed the lend from Ottoman Empire. They also fought against Serbs and denied Serbian sentiment, because Serbs in areas where majority wanted to liberate and join Serbia. There is no Christian since end of XVIII Century and French revolution that was born an lived on the territories of Bosnia that claims Bosnian nationality. Till today all Christians are clear on their Croatian and/or Serbian heritage. Only Christians who ever wanted Bosnian nation are Paddy Ashdown and Bill Clinton and you are complaining on them. Not to forget to mention their portable and easy to use historian Noel Malcolm, who rewrote history of the area in 1994 that would suit the need for NATO campaign in the same year against Bosnian Serbs

Q: With the coming of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, the denial of Bosnian existence continued, this was the case with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, with the independent state of Croatia, and with the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

A: With rightful reasons. It would have been so stupid if they did it. More then simple majority of the people of Bosnia at that time (only Serbs were more then 48% in time before WW2. If you add Croatians then it was more then simple majority. It will be after 1960s where Bosnian Muslims will gain in numbers thanks to way higher birth rate) were claiming Serbian or Croatian statehood, which would make Bosnia having more "foreigners" than native population. Considering that this "foreigners" did not came but lived there longer then "natives" (who in common have only Islam, that came 800 years after "foreigners" were already living there), acknowledging Bosnian nation would have been an absurd! Till today Serbs and Croats have been majority in Bosnia, and they live there since 7th century. Creation of Bosnian Nation would make majority in country minority.

Q: Bosnians were first mentioned in the Yugoslav constitution in 1974 and they still weren't allowed to declare themselves as Bosnians because Tito forced the Bosnians to declare themselves as Muslims with a capital m (rules of Bosnian language) to differentiate the national identification from religious identification.

A: Same reasons as I explained in previous paragraph

Q: Today Bosnia-Herzegovina is mostly a Serb state whereby 49% of the country belongs to the Serbs and the Serbs have a right to block anything and everything in the three member presidency. This was Bill Clinton's decision when he created the Dayton peace accords.

A: What you always forget to mention is that Serbs got empty land, but all big cities went with Bosnian Muslims. Sarajevo which before WW2 had Serbian majority (relative majority) is 1% of Bosnia but 10% of its wealth. London is 2% of territory of England but 25% of all jobs, houses and infrastructure is there. Of 5 biggest cities in Bosnia you expelled Serbs and got 3.5, Serbs got 1 and Croatians got 0.5. Muslims (Sarajevo, Tuzla, Zenica and 1\2 of Mostar) Croatians ( 1/2 of Mostar) Serbs (Banja Luka)

Thus Bosnian Muslims got majority of jobs, infrastructure, houses, factories, buildings, schools, universities, libraries, ....

Serbs are not obstructing Bosnia more then you were obstructing Yugoslavia. They have right to choose their destiny as you have chosen yours!

Finally name one prominent Christian in Bosnia (intellectual) who claims his Bosnian nationhood. Many adore region, but they are always Serbs or Croats. Same as someone in Toscana adores Toscana but finds himself Italian, not Toscanini. On the other side there is a number of people born as Bosnian Muslims who realized their origins. I will list several famous names: - Emir Kusturica - Mesa Selimovc - Hamzo Humo (who realized their origins? as opposed to 2 million Bosniaks and 4 million Croatians who haven`t? I believe that this Serbian policy can best be demonstrated by examples of Alexander the Great and Fidel Castro, for whom some Serbian "scientists" claim to be Serbian.) It will be Paddy Ashdown and Bill Clinton who would forcefully fight for BONSIN NATION, and you are blaming them. Those were Germans who were using Bosnian nationhood as division and conquer policy. There is no nation on the Balkans who acknowledges originality of Bosnian nation. However, they all follow policies of big powers. Talk to Romanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Hungarians, Croatians, Serbs, Montenegrins even Italians. They all know the story of Turkish conquest and consequences on the Balkans. Ironically even Turks are aware of it, and they rather say they defend their child when they support Bosnia. Under the child they refer to all Slavic Muslims in the Balkans. Hm.... let me guess why? ( Serbian "scientists" may have discovered a medical marvel, the worlds first case of mass amnesia, when 6 million(Bosniaks + Croatians) people forgot they were Serbian. How is this possible is not really clear to anyone with an IQ over 80, and to those who are not conspiracy theorists)

Sandzak is a turkish word meanin flag.Sandzak never existed before the Ottoman invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is Herzegovina almost left out of this article?
The country is called Bosnia and Herzegovina.And all i see here is "so-called" history of Bosnia which is still contested but the Herzegovina is left out.Look at the article about Herzegovina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Majority of Muslims
It is stated in history : "The three centuries of Ottoman rule also had a drastic impact on Bosnia's population make-up, which changed several times as a result of the empire's conquests, frequent wars with European powers, forced and economic migrations, and epidemics. A native Slavic-speaking Muslim community emerged and eventually became the largest of the ethno-religious groups due to the restriction imposed by the Ottoman Empire,[21] and conversions-for-gain."

While it is true that Muslims aventualy became majority, that didn't hapen until 1970. While for the most part this statement is true, it is implied that muslims became majority in Bosnia during the Middle Ages which is not true, as evidence there are many population census's from Otoman period, of Austro Hungarian origin and later those from Yugoslavia. This part will be changed so that there will be no false implications. If someone wants evidence, plese look at demographic history of Bosnia and Hercegovina, it is present on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.5.113.137 (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it is true that not until late the Bosniaks or how you call, the muslim community became the majority. But it was always that the muslims lived in the urban regions, while the other two ethnic groups were mostly based in rural regions. I don't say now that just muslims live in cities and serbs/croats lived in villages, but when you look in most censuses you will see that it was the case as I said before. AnelZukic (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * So, what this has to do with above stated point. Humans are those living in the villages too. If we insist to state that majority in cities where Muslims we should also add the reasons for such situation. Simply converts to Islam where privileged over christian population granted better positions, better land, jobs as civil servants and with it possibility to leave in urban areas. Thus reader will start to get the clue why in previous comment it was insisted on formulation Muslim community rather then Bosniaks, since genesis is very linear. There are no Bosniaks who are Christians in today world and at time of Ottoman domination no-one considered themselves Bosniak (apart regional determination of province inside empire). There were religiously divided communities (of same origin Serbo-Croatian) with new growing nation of Islam that today claims statehood of Bosniak (very similar to Bosnian) while those remaining to be Christians claim Serb and Croat statehood are slowly becoming minority on their own land. Nothing new, same process that happened in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Turkey.... that were once Christian countries with one major difference. There are no e.g Syrians in such high numbers in some other Syria, but there are Croatians and Serbs in huge numbers right on the other bank of river, divided by imposed borders of unwanted Bosnia and Herzegovina country. It would be as one day Muslims become majority in Venice and they proclaim themselves Veniciaks and with aid of NATO Venice becomes a country with Paddy Ashdown creating Venician nationhood. Well, as well as Bosnia, Venice used to be country too, right. Similar you can apply to many provinces in Europe that used to be states (not national though, same as Bosnia and Herzegovina).
 * It is really ridiculous how you can rape history of small nations, make them crazy like in Seal song, showing the force and telling them you will believe whatever I want you to believe and however it may be painful to you because I can make you think whatever I want and if you dare to rebel I will make you aggressor, criminal, I will lie you raped millions, killed hundreds of thousands three months after war broke out (even 5 years after its end we now know there was not 100000 killed all together even with third of those killed where Serbs). But CNN shamefully three months after beginning of war was reporting 200000 killed by Serbs. That CNN that is considered as established and reliably source on these pages. (that have Budapest on its map as capital of Serbia). Same you can do with Greeks telling them that Cyprus is not Greek (because UK fancy naval base) and that Macedonia is really something more related to Slavic nation in FYROM then Greek, but then turn to Slavs and tell them at the very same time that they came to Europe through the "back door" in the 7th century (diminishing their importance in Europe) 10 centuries AFTER Alexander the Great. You can CRY FREE TIBET horrified with political domination of China yet you stay deff on Lacota Indians and their demands for freedom even though there is well known and proven record that Tibetans were and are way better of then American Indians. So wiki will probably use Richard Gear as reference and reliable source, wouldn't it? I mean he had never mentioned Lacota Indians, had he?
 * Instead of revealing shameful roll of world powers (namely Turkey and Austria) in suffering of people in Balkans, we are preached like bad kids buy no one else then same powers who left as this legacy of pain and now we have Hollywood telling us "the truth" namely Angelina, Richard, Owen, Clooney how we are terrorist, repast, butchers, backwards, nationalist, aggressors, massive killers... yet at the same time those preaching us have way bigger record of those behaviors namely (Turks, Americans) and this is still happening as I write this words down.
 * Shame Shame Shame Shame Shame..... but who cares!
 * Do I really need to give you sources that Turks conquered the Balkans (14th and 15th century), that there was islamization and persecution of Christians who rebelled in several wars, that before that there was forceful christianization of Slavs split between two major powers (German and Byzantine conquests 8,9,10 century), that there was germanization (17,18,18 century), that Brits used us for their games (Cramian war en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War, Congress of Berlin en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Berlin...) and that we are bad children as children left on the street on mercy of punks playing with them as they are pleased.

Population Demographics
When did Bosniaks become 50% of the population? I wasn't aware of this, is there a source to back this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gradanin (talk • contribs) 04:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Etymology Vandalism
One of the wiki clone pages had a really good sourced section on Bosnia&c's etymology.

It was replaced with kjiosjd ijhs fhuj fush sduhfsdghf dshfusdh uisdhfuis sduifh bosnia SUCKS in an act of vandalism by 89.146.191.132 at 19:22, 22 September 2008. I'm restoring it, but A) those of you who watch the page, please don't let vandals blank sections for that long; B) anyone know how to make a note of the ISP's vandalism for the admins? — LlywelynII  07:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

First use of Herzegovina
Is -ovina only Croatian? or also Serbian? and what was the first official use of it? The Ottomans called it Hersek, so I'd think Austria, but don't know. — LlywelynII  07:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It derives from a Bosnian lord who claimed (increased) independence from the king/ban of Bosnia, a little while before the Ottomans arrived; he started calling himself herceg rather than merely voivode, hence herzegovina (the suffix is hardly German or Turkish!). Of course we should be careful with national and language labels as the map was very different then to what it is now (and changing rapidly). Presumably the title "herceg" was a loanword from German via Hungarian...? bobrayner (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)