Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina/Archive 3

WIKI lies or NATOpedia
Removed. The Talk Pages are not a forum, but are for bringing Reliable Source material for the discussion of the betterment of the articles. Anon IP, your rant concerning the Russian, U.S,, and various Euro gov'ts was totally off-topic, had no RS citations, and was completely Original Research, which is not allowed. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Lie about Serbs
The following lie was removed : "The Orthodox community in Bosnia – initially confined to Herzegovina and Podrinje – spread throughout the country during this period and went on to experience relative prosperity until the 19th century."

This is simply a lie, when Serbs arived on Balkan Peninsula they settled between rivers Vrbas and Cetina in the west and Bojana, Morava and Ibar in the east. So they were since 7. century spread almost on entire space of todays Bosnia, and later when Turks arived they moved even further to the west. This is historically provable fact as it is mentioned by Bizantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos in his works and Balkan peoples and their history etc.

That is not a lie at all my friend, in fact renowned archeologist Boris Graljuk, Confirms here that there is no archeological evidence that supports the theory that any serbs lived in bosnia before the arrival of ottomans: http://imageshack.us/f/254/dsc00618j.jpg/, if you need more evidence just say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.16.67 (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

official language
Per the language law of 1993, the official language is "the Ijekavian standard literary language". That of course means nothing to most English speakers. We had it as "Serbo-Croatian (Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian)". I have tentatively tried "Shtokavian in the Ijekavian accent (Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian)", as being closer to the legal wording. Is that an improvement, or does it just make things confusing? — kwami (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Official Languages
Bosnia and Herzegovina has three official languages - Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian.

I don't want to start linguistic discussion, since this is question of law, not linguistics.

For example, you have this document here - http://www.sudbih.gov.ba/files/docs/zakoni/ba/Zakon_o_Sudu_BiH_-_precisceni,_nezvanicni_tekst.pdf

This is not the only example. I hope you understand. --Wusten fuchs 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's for the courts. What you quoted out of it does not set the official language for the country. — kwami (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, courts are subjects of the state, right? If not, then it's anarchy. It's just one exammple, it's same in police, schools etc. For example I attended Croatian-language school.


 * Just to quote this previous document: "U postupku pred Sudom i u obraćanju Suda sa strankama u upotrebi su službeni jezici." (In translation: In procedures in front of the court, in applying to the court with the parties, official languages are in use."--Wusten fuchs 20:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * http://www.parlamentfbih.gov.ba/hr/ - official parliament page - three langs, etc. --Wusten fuchs 20:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Evidence for "Bosnians are believed to be the heaviest coffee drinkers in the world"
The source was more of a blog, and I couldn't find any independent evidence. Most sources mentioned Finland as the world's heaviest coffee drinkers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherman67 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.49.66 (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources and official languages
Wustenfuchs, I am not at all interested in your claims. The source is not using plural, but singular - it is not talking about several languages, but one. The source adds that this one language has three designations "Bosnian", "Serbian", "Croatian".

""the standard literary language of the three constitutive nations is officially used, designated by one of the terms: Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian.""

As I'm sure you know, "language" is singular, "languages" is plural. And, as we have established on the individual articles, "Bosnian", "Serbian" and "Croatian" are variants of Serbo-Croatian. This is from the Language law of Bosnia and Herzegovina, cited in a very reliable source from 2006 (E.C. Hawkesworth). -- Director  ( talk ) 20:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I added more correct source, besides, nothing can stand against authentic documents and laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Wusten fuchs 20:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And the above is the Language law of Bosnia and Herzegovina, quoted in a reliable secondary source. I wonder what exactly does your source state? At best there is a sources conflict that needs to be resolved. Either way, a note will have to be introduced informing the reader that the three are all standardized forms of the Serbo-Croatian language. Mosty importantly: you were bold, but your edit was reverted - now discuss. Please refrain from edit-warring, Wustenfuchs. See WP:BRD. -- Director  ( talk ) 20:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And don't ignore laws of B&H. I'll quote this source of mine: "Whereas Serbocroatian/Croatoserbian had been the official language in the member republics of Croatia, of Bosnia and Herzegovina, of Serbia and of Montenegro during the period of Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, the newly founded nation states declared Croatian (1990) and Serbian (1992) as the official languages of the respective states and Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian (1993) as the official languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina." --Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 20:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What can I tell you? Your source is apparently wrong. This is what the 1993 Language law of Bosnia and Herzegovina explicitly states:
 * ""the standard literary language of the three constitutive nations is officially used, designated by one of the terms: Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian.""


 * That is a direct quote from the law of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Its a primary source quoted directly in a secondary source. I thought this law from 1993 had been superseded, or that you were going to quote the constitution or something. In your own words "nothing can stand against authentic documents and laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina". You don't have an argument, Wustenfuchs. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 22:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * However DIREKTOR, SC is still not official language. I'll get back to this discussion later. The current Constitution of B&H doen't have articles dealing with language, official languages are those used in entities - FB&H and RS, respectively Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian, as stated in various documents. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 22:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the source. The 1993 law is of course applicable on the state level, and does not apply to entities (which did not even exist in 1993). SC is the official language on the state level, referred to by three aforementioned designations. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 01:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we need an actual source that the 1993 law has been superseded or replaced. Perhaps BiH has no official language, or perhaps all 3 are independently official, but all we have to go on is what we have. If you know better, please provide your source. — kwami (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I think Parliament would solve the problem - https://www.parlament.ba/o_bih/Default.aspx?langTag=bs-BA&pril=b --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 16:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't. Not the actual law itself quoted in a scholarly secondary source. "Nothing can stand against authentic documents and laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina."
 * You unilaterally deleted long-standing scholarly sources and sourced info without consensus, Wustenfuchs. Don't, please. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">--  Director  ( talk ) 21:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you see. The earlier source was provided for statement that official langs are those three, with one official dialect, you changed the whole thing. I just removed the dialects. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 23:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the parliament site doesn't say any languages are official. All it says is Jezici: bosanski, hrvatski i srpski. If you want the three to be listed as official languages, you need to provide a source that they are official languages. Since we have the language law that says they're one official language, you'd need the actual law that supersedes that by saying that they're three. — kwami (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 1993 law is invalid. Are you acting to be blind? I added one law, now I'll do other. For example here article 5 says that official languages, Bos., Cro., and Serbian are in use. It's law on administration. You are adding, de iure nonexisting language as official one. In various laws, it is repeated official langs etc., in everyday life, if you fill out a form when making a report to the police "you have right to use any of the official languages" etc.


 * And Kwamigami, please don't make statement that's for court or that's for the administration, all of those are subjects of one same state. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 00:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I must be blind, because I don't see where you've shown that the 1993 law is invalid.

Please read official language. You are evidently not familiar with the concept. A working language for a court or government is not the same as an official language for a nation. In the USA, for example, there is no official language, despite the fact that English is official at various levels below the state.

As for your last source, it says,
 * ''U organima uprave u ravnopravnoj upotrebi kao službeni jezici su bosanski, hrvatski i srpski jezik.
 * ''U postupcima pred organima uprave stranke se mogu koristiti i drugim jezikom ako taj jezik nije jedan od službenih jezika i to o trošku organa uprave pred kojim se vodi postupak.
 * Službena pisma u organima uprave su ćirilica i latinica.

It sounds to me as though those are the languages of administration. It's published by the Ministry of Justice. Perhaps they're the same as the official languages of the state, but if so, we should be able to find the law which says they're the official languages of the state. — kwami (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In laws that are made by parliament, those langs are official, in laws on education, traffic etc, those languages are always mentioned as equal for use and as official languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It's impossible to find a law of whole Bosnia and Herzegovina that states this and this language is official, you can find such laws in constitutions of entities, where clearly says: Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are official languages. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 00:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You can see both constitutions, one of FBiH other of the RS. Article 6 of the Constitution of the FBiH and Article 7 of the Constitution of the RS say there are three official languages. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 00:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Constitutions of the entities? Have you actually read the source, Wustenfuchs? It states plainly that the two entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina claim three separate languages, whereas on the state level, the Language Law of 1993 establishes Bosnia and Herzegovina as using one language that is known under three designations. What is confusing you here?


 * Furthermore I doubt that the 1993 law has been superseded, Wustenfuchs. The source quoting it is from 2006, and the 2010 source you quoted also refers to it. Also, I have to note you started making such a claim only after I stated that is what is necessary. You will need to conclusively show that the 1993 law is superseded. With real sources that say so unambiguously (i.e. sans the WP:OR). <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 02:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * DIREKTOR, I acctualy don't need to do that, since the official language is the language or languages in our case, that are used in the courts, administration and parliament. My sources state those languages are used in those areas. See official language article. And just to add, you don't need to search for the sources wich state this and this law is supreseded by this and this law, because when you search the present-day laws of B&H you won't find a "language law" or similiar law. However, you will find court, administration and parliament law, wich state that Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian languages are equal for use and all three languages are official languages. Acctualy, you are the one who should find a source that '93 law is still valid, because such law doesn't exist any more. You can easly find all the laws of all ministries through the internet. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 13:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We're getting silly here. It's up to the person making a claim to support that claim. If I claim the Moon is made of green cheese, it's not up to you to prove me wrong. You claim the law is not valid, so you need to demonstrate that. A more recent law presenting the official language(s) of the state would suffice. — kwami (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You have a list of laws of all ministries. Recent laws are law on administration, court and parliament. It is stated in the article Official languages that the language/languages used in those institutions are official languages. If you search for a language law, you won't find it - it doesn't exist. You know, after the Washington agreement and Dayton Treaty all 1993 laws and 1993 Constitution with it become invalid. New laws were delcared, the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina became the most powerfoul document in Bosnia and Herzegovina wich coordinates laws of the entities. Entities got very high level of autonomy, but they are not allowed to brake state's constitution, simple as that. What is not clear with the statements in administration and court laws? You are asking me to find source (besides those two laws) that claim 1993 law is obsolate, and it's clear those two say it's obsolate by simply stating that's not official language any more. What is so confusing there, how other language that is not used in administration, court and parliament can be official language?


 * What are you trying to say is, I think, that the official language according to the invalid language law of 1993 is SC, but even though recent laws of administration, court and parliament say it's not, it just used there, but non-used SC is official language of the state. Ignoring the fact that official language is the one used in administration, court and parliament. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 17:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You have it backwards. An official language will be used in the courts and govt. That doesn't mean that the language used in the courts and govt. is the official language. The US is a case in point: English is the language used in the courts and govt, but it's not the official language of the country. — kwami (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

This here is list of laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina as whole, single state. Here is our famous "language law", contained in 1993 Constitution, this Constitution is invalid since 1994 you know. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 18:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not the language law, that's the constitution. And the wording is different:
 * U Republici Bosni i Hercegovini u službenoj upotrebi je srpskohrvatski odnosno hrvatskosrpski jezik ijekavskog izgovora. 
 * Oba pisma – litinica i ćirilica su ravnopravna. 
 * Only the secord line matches what we have. Again, the language law may no longer be in force, but you have not demonstrated that. And you have only found mention of three separate languages in subentities. Suggestive, yes, but not demonstration. — kwami (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If all 1993 laws have been revoked, then we should remove that section. I commented it out. Director, is that correct? It's kinda weird: the 1993 constitution says SC is official, yet our sources do not quote that, only the 1993 language law which refuses to give a name to the language.


 * Also, if there are currently three official languages, does the current constitution come in three separate versions? — kwami (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As I recall, the "language law" wasn't writen with capitall leters, wich leads me to the conclusion that author probably ment on the article from the constitution (wich is very similiar with the quote of the author). And yes, you have Constitution in three languages, though I can't find Serbian-language version. (Croatian version; Bosnian version). But I'm pretty sure there is Serbian version also. Why not make official languages more simple - Bosnian, Croaitan and Serbian and add both Constitutions as source? --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 01:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not at all similar to that quote! One says there's a single official language, the other says there's three. — kwami (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any source that the Dayton accords revoked all BiH laws? — kwami (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense if you ask me. Who "revokes all laws"? <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 12:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * New laws have been voted after Dayton in 1995. Language law is not valid any more. It is shown in administration, court and parliament laws. What other source could confrime this? --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 22:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"Opći okvirni sporazum za mir u BiH, parafiran 21. novembra 1995. u Daytonu i potpisan 14. decembra iste godine u Parizu, sadrži 11 aneksa, kojima su dogovoreni osnovni principi državnopravne organizacije te civilnog i vojnog aspekta mirovnog sporazuma. Aneks IV. Sporazuma sadrži Ustav BiH, kao najviši pravni i politički akt jedne države. Sastavne dijelove Ustava BiH čine i Aneks I.: Dodatni sporazumi o ljudskim pravima koji  će se primjenjivati u BiH i Aneks II.: Prijelazne odredbe. Ustav BiH stupio je na snagu nakon potpisivanja Općeg okvirnog sporazuma za mir u BiH, kao ustavni akt kojim se amandmanski mijenja i nadređuje Ustav Republike BiH. Ustavom BiH utvrđena je obaveza entiteta da, u roku od tri mjeseca od njegovog stupanja na snagu, amandmanski izmijene i usklade svoje ustave s Ustavom BiH." - As I said, after Dayton 1993 Constitution become invalid and laws of 1993 Bosnia and Herzegovina were changed very soon in coordination with new the Constitution. This new Constitution made higher autonomy for the entities (same source claims this) and those entites, with their Constitutions, declared offical languages on entity level and thus all three languages as official languages of the entities became official languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Let's just see things as they are. 1993 Constitution stated there is one official language, this constitution was changed in 1995. Now we have entities with their Constitutions that state there are three official languages, while, as you claim, there is still valid "language law" wich states one official language. Per Deyton, entites aren't allowed to brake Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but if the language law is still valid then those entities did that. See the logical or legal problem here? How ever you see it. (Source is Priručnik za polaganje stručnog upravnog ispita published by Ministry of Justice of B&H in 2006). Also another problem is how you read the source that "claims" one language:

"In the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Ijekavian standard literary language of the three constitutive nations is officially used, designated by one of the terms: Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian. Both alphabets, Latin and Cyrillic, are equal."

Ijekavian standard of literary language of the three constutive nations... wich means Ijekavian literary standard of Bosnaian, Croatian and Serbian language. Very simple really. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 23:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We're not talking about the 1993 constitution.
 * Yes, very simple. I'm glad we seem to agree now. — kwami (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Kwamikagami, if so then it would be better to add Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian language and add that ijekavian is official dialect. Both this language law source and laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina point that way... --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 09:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You said, "Ijekavian literary standard of Bosnaian, Croatian and Serbian language. Very simple really." I agree. A single official language. But that's not what you're putting in the info box: there you're claiming there are three official languages. — kwami (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You haven't understand me. Sources claim there are three official languages. One official language is ilegal, I demonstrated that. Constitutions of entities can't brake Constitution of state (or it's laws!). I just stated that official dialect is ijekavian, of all three official languages, as stated in that source of yours. You seam not to understant this first souce wich states one dialect (not language) is in use. And this dialect is litterary form of three official languages - Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian. "It's designated by one of the terms (plural) - Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian" Depends wich official language you use. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 16:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And you don't understand what you're reading. This has been explained to you several times. Unless you actually have a reliable source that BiH has three official languages, we are not going to list three official languages. That would be a violation of WP:OR. — kwami (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not WP:OR at all. What are the administration, court and parliament law to you? Those aren't sources? Even though that same source that mentions "language law" doesn't mention SC. The best source to you is an author that doen't citate the law at all (and it's probably Constitution from the 1993) The guy who deals with linguistics isn't reliable source, because this is question of law. To you seams all right to add one official language per source that doesn't have clear foundations and not to respect laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina as reliable sources? --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs  17:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it logical to claim there is one language? Dayton was signed in three languages, Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian. (Wyn Jones, G. (ed.), Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, Europa: London, 1997, p. 98.). Also, this 1993 law is obviously invalid, since official name of Bosnia and Herzegovina since 1995 is "Bosnia and Herzegovina" not "Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina". Per Constitution The term "Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina" is used to designate pre-Dayton B&H. Is it normal to you that law uses old name of the state? Not really. Now you are accusing me of edit warring, while you continue to push the source that doesn't citate this non-existing language law against existing laws on administration and court? I'm the one with unreliable sources? Another realiable source stating there are three official languages Your WP:POV is standing aganist both, logic and laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 18:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We have 2006 and 2010 sources quoting the 1993 language law, which states that there is a single language. You have demonstrated three languages at the state level, but not at the federal level. Official for BiH means official for the federation. If you do not stop edit warring over this, I will report you and ask to have you blocked. If you feel we are being unreasonable, there are various ways you can address that through WP:dispute resolution. — kwami (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You have CIA's informations also three official languages. Do you know what is Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina? It's an entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with three official languages. Republika Srpska, also one of the entities with three official languages and Bosnia and Herzegovina as country (state) with three official languages. I have also two sources that claim three official languages. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs  18:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * According to the CIA, Serbian is not official. Shall we say that the only two official languages are Bosnian and Croatian?
 * Again, state ≠ federation. What's true at the state level is not necessarily true at the federal level.
 * What you say may be true. But your argument is based on WP:OR, not verifiable sources. I've asked at the language project if anyone knows for sure. — kwami (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Kwamikagami, I live in a very complex state. Federation is entity of the state, part of the state as Republika Srpska. Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state is "boss" to both entities. I added laws of the "boss". I can't really expres my self to show you position of FBiH, RS and BiH. Robert Greenberg in his book "Language and identity in Balkans" also states there are three official languages at page 157, book is published by Oxford in 2004. Also not just him, Xabier Arzoz's book "Respecting linguiustic diversity in the European Union" states the same thing. Majority of books state there are three official languages. I won't enter linguistic discussion with you are those languages SC or not, but there is only one book with "1993 lang. law" wich claims there is one lang. (author claims Bosnian is only official language wich shows his unreliability)--<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 19:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, those are sources. I'll check them out.
 * And no, the author does not claim that Bosnian is the only official language. They never give it a single name, but say it goes by three names.
 * BTW, when I say "federation", I don't mean the FBiH, which is just one of two states in the federation. I mean BiH. — kwami (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * See the beginning of "Bosnian language" or "Bosnia and Herzegovina" section (not sure for the name) in his book. He claims Bosnian is only official language. Also see p. 50 of the other book Forgot to mention. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 19:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Who does? Which book? — kwami (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The "language law" book, can't remember the name. But see p. 50 of the Arzoz's book. Forgot to tell you that. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 19:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Arzoz is discussing Slovenia. He mentions three official languages in Bosnia, which contradicts both the ELL2 and the CIA. So we have a discrepancy in a source that pays almost no attention to the topic. The ELL2 article on Bosnia also says there are 3 official langs, but says that all three are called "Bosnian": The term 'Bosnian' refers to the languages spoken by Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats, and Bosnian Bosniacs ... although the Croats and the Serbs in BiH call their language Croatian and Serbian, respectively. But no, the ELL2 article on BCS does not say that only Bosnian is official, it says that the official language goes by three names. So we have three numbers: 1 lang (ELL2 on BCS), 2 langs (CIA), and 3 langs (ELL2 on Bosnia, parenthetical mention in Arzoz). And of course 3 langs are mandated in the constitutions of the two constituent parts of BiH, so even if they're not official langs of BiH, they're still official in BiH.
 * I don't have access to that part of Greenberg: can you quote? — kwami (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. Greenberg: "The drafters of the Dayton Accords indicated that Bosnia-Herzegovina had to abide by the 1992 European Charter for Regional Minority Languages, designated to ensure that citizens are not discriminated against because of their language. There have been dificulties in implenting the Charter in Bosnia-Herzegovina, because the issue of "majority" vs. "minority" languages is not straightfoward. While Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian are all purported to be "official languages", and therefore ostensibly do not require the protection of a Charter on minority languages, in practice speakers of these three languages are de facto minorities in specific regions. Thus Bosniacs and Croats are in the minority in Republika Srpska, Serbs and Croats are minority in the several cantons of the Croat-Bosniac Federation..."


 * Further, Greenberg explains that problem with Charter in Bosnia and Herzegovina was because Charter doesn't allow to the official language to be minority language. If you need quotation of that part, I can write it also. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 22:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "purported" - "said to be true or real but not definitely true or real, alleged" <font face="Eras Bold ITC">--  Director  ( talk ) 23:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what in the world does he mean by are all purported to be "official languages" ? Is the situation so confused that he can't tell if they're official or not?

On the other hand, the BiH entry in ELL2 says that all three are official languages. The only problem is that there is so little detail that it's hard to know if this actually contradicts the other ELL2 article, or if it's simplifying matters by letting the names of the language stand in for the language. Arzoz has a similar problem. On the other hand, if the three were all separate official languages, why would they bother to say any more than that? So we're back to being effectively unable to tell what several of our sources actually support. I sympathize with Wustenfuchs here; I just don't know how to resolve this without more explicit sourcing – say, an account of how the 1993 law was revoked, or a citation of a more recent law that makes the three official languages. — kwami (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes about the adjective "purported", they are de iure official, de facto not (because of minority problem). That's why author used this adjecitve. It is clearly they are official by law, since installing a Charter in Bosnia and Herzegovina was problematic because of that. But we can also use United Nations as the most neutral and the most informed source about Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in the "Yearbook of the United Nations" (p. 462) published in 2005 it is stated there are three official languages. Beside the laws and statements in laws that there are three official languages, Agency for Statistics of B&H also states there are three official languages here.


 * Now I'd like to comment this "language law". Bosnia and Herzegovina is not same state after 1995. The language law would be impossible, the author made a mistake, and he was clearly not informed well. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 03:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, don't "interpret" the source to suit your needs, Wustenfuchs. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 03:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I also added another source in comment above. It's not nonsense, sice he is the only author (who still doesn't mention SC) who claims there is one official language. Laws, official pages of institutions and other authors mention three offical languages. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 03:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wustenfuchs, saying "the law is impossible" is just silly. Such arguments are not valid here.
 * But yes, this looks like a good source. — kwami (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We solved this then? And my comment "the law is impossible" wasn't argument. I just added my oppinion, no need to discuss that. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 04:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. A secondary source trumps our own research and interpretations (per policy). Either way, don't edit the language in the lede. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 04:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? You have secondary sources that also state three official languages. Also, Britannica states there are three official languages here. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 04:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs, WP generally relies on 2ary sources (such as ELL2) rather than primary sources like the BiH govt website, or 3ary sources like the EB. The reason is that primary sources often contradict each other, and we rely on expert opinion to evaluate them (doing that ourselves would be OR), whereas 3ary sources like the EB are generally no more reliable than WP itself. Often it doesn't matter (for example, if the BiH constitution clearly stated it one way or the other, we probably wouldn't have a problem, because we'd all acknowledge it as supreme), but this is a tricky case. I hope that we can eventually get a definitive answer here, but we may end up having to say that we just don't know. — kwami (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, ELL2 may count as a 3ary sources as well. At least the BiH article would, since it's just written by the ELL editors, who are not experts in the subject. The S/C/B article is written by EC Hawkesworth at U. College, London. I found this blurb on her:
 * Celia Hawkesworth is emerita Senior Lecturer in Serbian and Croatian at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College, London. She has published numerous articles and several books on Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian literature, including the studies Ivo Andric: Bridge between East and West (Athlone Press, 1984); Voices in the Shadows: Women and Verbal Art in Serbia and Bosnia (CEU Press, 2000); and Zagreb: A Cultural History (Oxford University Press, 2007). Among her many translations are two works by Dubravka Ugresic, published by Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1998; The Museum of Unconditional Surrender, short-listed for the Weidenfeld Prize for Literary Translation, and The Culture of Lies, winner of the Heldt Prize for Translation in 1999. Her most recent translations include Dubravka Ugresic's Lend Me Your Character (Dalkey Archive Press, 2005), and Ivo Zanic's Flag on the Mountain (Saqi Books, 2007).

Of course, that doesn't mean she's an expert in law, but it does mean she can read the primary sources. We do however have the problem that, while the pub date is given as 2006, that's the pub date of the ELL2, and does not tell us when Hawkesworth wrote the article. (We know it was after ELL1 (1994), however, because that would have been indicated.) — kwami (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So we have very complex situation? Well, the Brtitannica's article on Bosnia and Herzegovina was also writen by people with history academic degree and one of them is expert in Bosnian questions. As you can see every law states that there are three official languages equal for use, while we can't see SC being used in any of laws, only in 1993 Constitution wich was changed. Also, along with this laws and sites of institutions of B&H, we have secondary sources, like Brtiannica, and many other books. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 13:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh... Britannica is a tertiary source and the situation is not "complex"... <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 14:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's odd that "language law" from 1993 is very similiar to the Constitution of the 1993. Why would anyone have language law when such rule is described in the Constitution? It is rule to mention official languages in the constitution. But the problem is author doesn't state the law is still valid (!), neither is writen in capital letters, so this law doesn't exist. You don't see a problem here? You just use her quote of the law to claim it's official language, while sources that state wich languages are official - you ignore. It's not normal. This is POV, and we can't have that on Wikipedia. She can have PhD or whatever, but she is wrong in one thing - "official language spoken in Bosnia and Herzegovina is Bosnian" - it's not, she is wrong and thus unreliable source. Also, if she really wanted to show that SC is official language, she would mentioned it as one, but she didn't. She just stated that name of the official language is Bosnian, and then she quoted the non-existing law and pointed us how the situation in Bosnia and Herzegoivna is "complex", never stated law is valid. If you want to quote her as a source, add Bosnian as official language.


 * And I didn't claimed we have complex situation. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 15:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wustenfuchs, this is utter nonsense. "Neither is writen in capital letters, so this law doesn't exist"? That has nothing to do with anything. "She is wrong and thus unreliable source". More nonsense. Please read WP:RS and WP:TRUTH. If you can find the law that makes these the official languages, I think we'd accept them even though they're primary sources. But no personal opinions about what must or must not be true. — kwami (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I wouldn't accept any primary source Wustenfuchs unearthed over a secondary source that gainsays him. If you want to seriously start this discussion again, Fuchs, I hope you will have a secondary source with you. Cheers <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 00:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Tertiary source is "an index and/or textual condensation of primary and secondary sources" wich makes them very reliable, they are higher level then secondary sources. And besides, Hawkworth's book states Bosnian is official language. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (a) I see you *still* haven't read WP:RS. I guess there's no reason to take you seriously if you aren't going to even bother to do that. I will simply revert everything you do from now on without bothering to comment.
 * (b) Which book? Seven were mentioned. It would help if you told us what you were talking about, and actually cited your references rather than expecting us to do it for you. — kwami (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Britannica . The book wich mentions Bosnian is Hawkesworth, the one you use to claim SC is official language. And what is that I need to read in Identifying reliable sources? No matter if Hawkesworth is reliable or not, she claims Bosnian is the name of the official language. If you add her as a source, please, add Bosnian as official language. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 05:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

WHICH BOOK? Hawkesworth did not write the Britannica article. Please give the source for your claims. "The book" isn't good enough. — kwami (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Hawkesworth's book. She stated Bosnian is official name of the language spoken in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I just added Brtiannica as tertiary source wich opposed such claim by stating there are three official languages (not just Britannica, all primary sources also, and some secondary, majority of them). --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 08:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, she did not say that. Read it again. — kwami (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll quote her: "The official name of the language spoken in Bosnia and Herzegovina is Bosnian. The status of the language in reallity, however, is more complex, as may be seen in the language law adopted in 1993..." Pardon me, the book's name is "Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World" (Keith Brown, Sarah Ogilvie) where Hawkesworth participated also (she wrote "Serbo-Croatian-Bosnian Lignusitic Compex" section in the book). Can you show me the whole quote from the "Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics"? Because I can't find her as an author of book under that name, even though in the article Bosnia and Herzegovina, the section of the book has a same name, and proably the same text.


 * But it's important to add that even she doesn't mention Serbo-Croatian as official language, so why you add SC as official language of Bosnia and Herzegovina? She just, by quoting this law, stated that ijekavian is standard dialect designated by terms: Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 09:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to make DIREKTOR happy. Eastern Europe: an introduction to the people, lands, and culture. Page 625. Richard C. Frucht. This is a good secondary source, is it not? Also he nicely explains the situation before 1995. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 09:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that. Yes, I think they're the same text.
 * The law states, "the Ijekavian standard literary language of the three constitutive nations is officially used". That's Serbo-Croatian. But you're right, it's hard to know if that's supposed to still be the law when she wrote. 10:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Frucht states that until 1995 the offical lang was SC, but after '95 Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian. That's probably what it was. Even though it was until '94, that is, until Washington Agreement when Bosnian and Croatian were official languages and Serbs were declared national minority. But that is not important for this discussion. So we have agreement then? --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 10:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks good to me. Either he or Hawkesworth are wrong, though, on one point, since he says it was officially known as SC prior to '95, while H. quotes the lang law as saying it had three names. Since the language law was official, it would seem it was not officially known as SC from '93 to '95. So this might be s.t. we will need to revisit at some point, if we find a source that clarifies further. — kwami (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ban Borić first, Ban Kulin secon - dubious claims
In section 2.History, sub-section 2.2.Medieval History I found these two sentences :

"The first Bosnian monarch was Ban Borić. The second was Ban Kulin whose rule marked the start of a controversy (...)"

These two claims that Borić was first and Kulin second are very dubious. I tried to make a small edit, which are not controversial in any way, I tried to rewrite something like this : "The first known Bosnian monarch is considered to be Ban Borić. The next monarch, who left considerable body of documents and informations, was Ban Kulin whose rule marked the start of a controversy (...)"

Thats it. But before I finished second edit, first was already reverted, without any explanation and any regard for fellow editor (which on the other hand is not surprising and it is in the "spirit of wikipedia") !? I simply cant see why, especially when entire paragraph is left unreferenced.

And, as I said, this is uncontroversial matter and its easy to find references for what I have in mind - no one ever claimed that these two are First and Second.


 * you are right. Sources on anything prior to Kulin are almost entirely absent; apart from someone called Boric being named. The extent or duration of his rule are not really known Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

NATO History of BIH in NATO-Pedia
It is hard to understand that following can be written in encyclopedia

"Secret discussions between Franjo Tuđman and Slobodan Milošević on the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina between Serbia and Croatia were held as early as March 1991 known as Karađorđevo agreement."

Citation needed, source document needed. Nothing of it is presented. Not really. According to Kiro Gligorov Milosevic never sugested division of anything. The only thing Milosevic stated ever was asking for preservation of Yugoslavia and right of nation to chose its destiny as UN charta granted according to his understanding of it. There are hundreds of statements he made in public about it and it is easy to check. Alija Izetbegovic (Bosnian Muslim) wanted to exercise "right" of federal state to secession based on his interpretation of constitution and against the will of Serbs in Bosnia. That is clearly stated even on this page. The only source of this information that Karadjordjevo agreement was about division of BiH is Stipe Mesic Croatian leader who cannot be taken for granted for obvious reasons. Other witnesses are NATO politicians and diplomats who had never been present in any of these talks. So this is NATO history based on NATO testimonies. People participating in talks related to break up of Yugoslavia Kiro Gligorovo from FYROM and Kucan from Slovenia stated even on Croatian national TV that it was Tudjman idea and that Milosevic never commented it. There is no proof, no neutral sources. NATO was part of war supporting Bosnian Muslim side forging alliance of Croats and Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs in 1994. Clinton openly announced it.


 * This is really unbelievable. Source [40] is enough. Guess again its US source, person who never ever was there. In Karadjordjevo agreement article of NATO-Wiki-pedia Milosevic was quoted stating no division was planed and then completely taken out of context in citation [17]. He was talking about division of BiH but internal division between 3 ethnic groups after the war broke with no implication on changes of external borders. You know there is number of books and documentaries on foreign involvement on break of Yugoslavia but if book is American its de facto proof if not its of suspicious character. How on earth person in book 40 new there was Karadjordjevo agreement. She herself can in no way be proof and the fact that she stipulated something is not essential proof that can be used for writing of encyclopedia. The only thing you miss here is VIEW Show with Barbara Walters. Who is writing this??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"Following the declaration of independence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serbs attacked different parts of the country."

Serbs lived in BiH so they could not attack it. This is logical and factual nonsense. Serbs could rebel, they could have pushed others and commit crimes but they could not attack since attack is something that by its definition comes from outside (except if you come out from Trojan horse). Following that logic it can be written that Bosnian Muslims attacked Yugoslavia since they wanted to separate from it the same way Serbs wanted to separate from Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is however language CNN, ITN, Sky and other western media were heavily exploiting for propaganda purposes trying to mobilize public opinion in USA and EU creating image that pleased them. Knowing that typical American struggle with Canadian place on the world map, simple narrative of someone ATTACKING was required. Serbs in Bosnia were supported by Serbs from Serbia, but Bosnian Muslims were supported by Saudi Arabia and beloved Al-Qaeda and Mujaheddins and no one writes Saudis attacked BiH. It is really ridiculous. You can write CNN articles that way but not something that pretends to appear scientific

"The Serbs wanted control and possession of virtually all territories in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as a top priority of their mastermind plan of a "Greater Serbia"."

That is really comical. In the same page it is stated that Serbs wanted to sign few plans compromising with way less then whole BiH and such a plans have been consistently rejected by Bosnian Muslim side. How can someone who want "everything" in first year of war compromise with 50% of territory that contained less then 35% of cities, apartments, factories, libraries... Only what Serbs got in high percentile was empty land. The rest pretty much they shared equally or even to less extent then others. That is clearly fact. Out of 5 biggest cities 3.5 were given to Bosnian Muslims, 1 to Serbs and only 0.5 to Croats at the end of the war. Agreement Serbs accepted in 1993 just one year after the war broke gave Bosnian Muslims 3 cities( Zenica, Tuzla, more then half of Sarajevo and half of the Mostar), 1.5 to Serbs (less then half of Sarajevo and Banja Luka) and Croatians got only 0.5 of Mostar. Thus there is no proof Serbs ever asked to get whole Bosnia. On the contrary with aid of NATO it were Bosnian Muslims who claimed all territory and they still claim it today. They claim that they are Bosnians (which they eventually emulated in Bosniaks speaking Bosnian language, thus making Serbs and Croats appearing as foreigners or minorities to someone watching CNN drinking 6 packs and judging Serbian character knowing nothing more then what CNN has to tell. Citation is needed to prove that any leader of Serbs in Bosnia claimed all Bosnia for Serbs only. Karadzic, Plavsic and Koljevic never stated that. They claimed right of nation to secession based on their will granted by UN charta. Someone can judge their understanding og UN charta, but cannot claim they ever stated they will take whole Bosnia just for Serbs. That is blant lie.

It is really time for some significant change of this idiocy of Wikipedia. You cannot claim encyclopedia writing when all your sources are CIA, NATO politicians and diplomats and selectively chosen historians from again countries that had interest in conflict — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * About Karađorđevo agreement, it's alleged. From my point of view, article Karađorđevo agreement should be erased from Wikipedia, as it's alleged. Such things shouln't be incorporated into a Wikipedia. Also, with other two claims, just reformulate them. Add your proposal, you are free to edit Wikipedia. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 19:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I cannot delete anything. I am not even registered. This cannot be changed, but deleted. Soon someone will come and claim it back. They simply do not need proofs since this is Western based site with clearly NATO agenda. Check references bellow and you will see it. Only I can do is to criticize. Even Chomsky cannot win against these people then how could I? Just check any of his lectures. You will never see one quote of Chomsky but there will be many of historians who suddenly get interested in rewriting Bosnia and Herzegovina history right from 1990s on like e.g. Noel Malcolm and so coincidentally it completely suited NATO idea on future carving of Balkans. Simply check Noel Malcolm stand and try to detect any deviation from NATO stance. You can also compare Encyclopedia Britannica editions before 1990 and after it. Astonishment is guaranteed. Suddenly they got very different light on issues. Only I can do is to expose nonsense applying common sense and logic sarcasm on statements in the article.


 * I don't want to enter conspiracy theories, however, I can tell you that from Serb point of view, they weren't those who attacked. Croats and Bosniaks claim the same. However, Bosnian war is different from war in Croatia or Slovenia, since it was rather a civil war. Using term "attacking" is, from my POV, neutral. Same term is used for Croats and Bosniaks if they attacked enemy-held positions. We can say Serb forces (not Serbs... sorry for using this term) attacked Sarajevo, because it's what they did. If we say they were liberating Sarajevo, well, we both know that ain't truth. Now, with existing sources there is nothing you can do until you present your source, name of the author, book, publisher, pages etc. Then we can discuss. It would be good if you would add your sources so other users may check them and see what can be done. And also, I invite you to join Wikipedia, one more user can't be bad. The more, the better, it makes articles better. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 13:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It was more like a "scramble" for Sarajevo. After breakdown of political talks by the consituent ethnic-political groups in parliament, respective forces quickly faced off in teh centre of Sarajevo; with the Bosniaks holding out in the centres and the Serbs had to fall back to the surrounding hills. In tactical terms, their "attack" Sarajevo was natural outcome; whatever emotive connotations we might attach to it. Slovenski Volk (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Lies about war in Bosnia and Hercegovina
There was no atack on the williges around Capljina by the Serbs, not 1992, not ever. But there was attack on Serbs in Capljina, 1992 in april about 30 Serbs where kidnapped and killed. And there was a camp for Serbs in Capljina,in Dretelj. And where are facts of Muslim crimes in Srebrenica, Sarajevo,. Who wrote that part of the war, an idiot or a liar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.87.240.30 (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You add a source and we will discuss. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 13:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wustenfuchs, it's clear that you are very anti-serbian, but any educated person can read the article on the "Bosnian War for Independence" and realize that it is heavily biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.215.150.68 (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 80.87.240,, If you feel that there are problems to be corrected in the article (as I'm sure there are); then its simple. Register, add solid sources for what needs to be said, or argued against, and it'll stay. Slovenski Volk (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect facts about Cetniks
Article states that they were fascists. This is incorrect. They were Serb Monarchists. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.162.71.131 (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * They were both at the same time. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 13:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No they weren't. Fascism isn't just about nationalism, it goes to the extreme of indoctrination, even as far as eugenics....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.215.150.68 (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Chetniks were not fascists, Wustenfuchs. They were conservative nationalists. While their ethnic cleansing and assimilation policies were in theory close to those of the Ustase, their ideology itself is significantly different. Is there a source? Where does the article state that? <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 12:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Tourism growth rate
The stated fact that growth rate in tourism since 1995 was very strong may be factually correct, but it is misleading. In 1995 the war ended, and it's fair to say that at the time tourism was almost non-existent, so no wonder the growth rate is so high. 93.173.29.43 (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would agree with this. There may be some tourism in BiH, but most westerners would still be reluctant to go there out of worry, and compared to other places, like the French Riviera, where tourism is without argument "very strong,"   Bosnia would come up very short.  And I don't see Ukrainians or Russians making it their holiday spot of choice, either. I would adjust the statement to a mention that tourism has begun again and is steadily increasing, or something to that effect. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Sarajevo Twist Tower.jpg
The file File:Sarajevo Twist Tower.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Sarajevo Twist Tower.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

can someone fix this statement??
" According to numerous International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) judgments the conflict involved Bosnia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro)[56] as well as Croatia.[57] " We need a verb or something, lol. I'll fix the spelling of "judgements" but the sentence makes no sense as written. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Bosnian War
The part about the Bosnian War gives the impression that Bosniaks were only ever victims and Serbs were only aggressors. The whole section just feels very one-sided. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the Central Intelligence Agency and our article on Bosnian War, "Serb forces were responsible for 90% of the war crimes committed during the conflict". Would it be right to try to create an impression of equal responsibility? Surtsicna (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This article gives the impression that the Serbs were responsible for everything that went wrong during the time and that the Bosniaks were the victims in every scenerio. It says that the Serbs started the war by killing a Bosniak civilian woman (other sources say the war was actually started by an attack by the Bosniaks on a Serb wedding). It leaves the impression that every victim of atrocities was Bosniak. I did not say that the article should "create an impression of equal responsibility". I think the article should clarify that Bosniaks and Croats committed war crimes as well, though on a lesser scale. I also think it would be a good idea to give the ethnic dimension of the casualties:


 * (According to the ICTY)
 * Total Bosniaks: 68,101
 * Total Serbs: 22,779
 * Total Croats: 8,858
 * Other: 4,995


 * (According to the RDC)
 * Total Bosniaks: 64,341
 * Total Serbs: 24,726
 * Total Croats: 7,602
 * Other: 547


 * --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is balanced and deals largely with figures that cannot be tampered with by any side. Scrolling through the article I can also see that it is well-cited and describes war crimes committed by all three sides. The objection seems largely subjective and greatly negligent as ethnic dimensions are already given indeed. The striking absence of any prolonged discussion on the talk page testifies to that. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I thought we were discussing the main article. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The CIA released that report in 1995, in the midst of the conflict. If one read a CIA report about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction in 2001, what do you think it would say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And if we were to read an intelligence report issued by Belgrade in 1995, I am sure it would present the Serbs as innocent victims of an international conspiracy. Get real. And just to add, the conflict ended in 1995. The date of the report was certainly not "in the midst of the conflict". Obviously, the report was compiled with a significant portion of the war in hindsight. I don't know which month saw the report finalized, but Serb chauvinists should better hope it was early that year as to avoid such flattering accomplishments as the Srebrenica massacre and Markale (Sarajevo) massacre latter that year from making the report. The findings of this report have since then been nothing short of consistently upheld by the policies of the US, as well as the International Criminal Tribunal in Hague where Serbs have comprised more than 85% of the indicted and convicted. The vast dominance of Serb-perpetrated war crimes is a fact by every benchmark: number of convicted war criminals, proportion of non-Serb civilian casualties, the demographic eradication in previous Bosniak-majority areas, and the successful establishment of the so-called "Republika Srpska" on 49% of the Bosnian territory with most of its political war-time leadership behind bars or in pending trials (most recently Ratko Mladic, supreme commander of the Serb army, and Radovan Karadzic, the very president of the "Republika Srpska"). Now, where do Serb nationalists and chauvinist even find the slightest marginal to argue? 90.230.54.125 (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read "Memorandum SANU II" which is an official document of Serbia in which is stated the following:

1. Umanjiti odgovornost Srbije za počinjene zločine i razaranja, i optužnicama, potjernicama i montiranim sudskim procesima protiv državljana BiH, Hrvatske i Kosova staviti je u ravnopravan položaj sa državama u okruženju. 2. Odvratiti pažnju regionalnih i međunarodnih medija sa završnih procesa bivšim pripadnicima srbijanskog političkog, obavještajnog i vojnog vrha i političkog vrha Republike srpske kojem se sudi u Haaškom tribunalu 3. Susjedne države BiH, Hrvatsku i Kosovo dovesti u položaj da odustanu od tužbi najavljenih pred međunarodnim sudovima. 4. Pokajničkim akcijama dovesti Srbiju u jednak položaj sa stradalim i oštećenim državama iz okruženja. 5. Inzistirati na zatvaranju Haaškog tribunala i na suđenju generalu Ratku Mladiću pred domaćim pravosuđem. 6. Destabilizirati vlade susjednih država, provocirati unutarnje nezadovoljstvo i nemire i slabiti oštricu optužbi protiv Srbije. 7. Pomagati odcjepljenje Republike Srpske. 8. Inzistirati na konstitutivnosti Srba u Hrvatskoj, Crnoj Gori i Kosovu i izvršiti tranziciju srpskih zajednica u državama regije u unitarnu, svesrpsku zajednicu. 9. Zaustaviti odvajanje Vojvodine, spriječiti dalju regionalizaciju Srbije i oslabiti djelovanje Islamske zajednice u Sandžaku.

!!! Read point 1.! Translation: "Decrease the reponsibility of Serbia for the warcrimes, destructions, accusations, warrants (for Serb warcriminals) and to create artificial trials and accusations for the citizens of BiH, Croatia and Kosovo and spread the accusations among all the countries equally."

The war was onesided as the Serbs were the aggressors and the Bosniaks were the defenders. Check the percent of civilian casualties and you will see that the killed serbs were almost all non-civilian while the killed Bosniaks were mostly civilians killed in the process of ethnic cleansing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljiljan89 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

58.173.108.6 (Ali Muratovic)
FYI: WP:ANI.

Sorry to abuse the article talk page space for a user conduct issue, but they've also edited here recently and there are substantially more watchers here than at WT:BiH. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Template
What is with the red template? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ That was vandalism.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Geographics
There is no real geographical describtion of the country. I'm most curious about following questio - Does Bosnia and Herzegovina have a coast, on maps it looks like a little part of the country has atleast a harbour. But I'm not sure. Boeing720 (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yossef Bodansky's book
Yossef Bodansky's book:



...may not be a reliable source, some quick googling produced this scathing review at Amazon that was extracted from the Bosnian Institute's Books on Bosnia published in London, 1999. A less contentious source should be referenced instead. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Single lead language
"Bosnian", "Croatian", and "Serbian" are "standardized varieties of the Serbo-Croatian language". In some articles only one of the three standardized varieties is relevant - here, all three are. Hence here it is imo absurd beyond the point of reasonable discussion to list the three varieties of the same language in the lead sentence. Also please note: the translations listed in the lead sentence have nothing to do with "official" status of this language or that, but are simply there to provide relevant translations. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 19:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

2013 census
I reverted this edit because: Do any reliable sources give ethnic or religious percentages from the 2013 census? bobrayner (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It cites the CIA World Factbook, which says no such thing.
 * This source says "The most recent details about the country's ethnic make-up will not be released before July next year.".
 * I fear the problem may have returned:
 * The "source" is actually a dead link. I found the actual preliminary results here, and they don't mention ethnicity. And we have a different source which says that no census results on ethnicity will be released until next year.
 * Do you have a source for these numbers? I'm keen to update the article with accurate numbers, but we shouldn't make it up. bobrayner (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for these numbers? I'm keen to update the article with accurate numbers, but we shouldn't make it up. bobrayner (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If I am not mistaken the ethnic "results" will not be released until spring. <font face="Chiller"><font color="grey" size="4px">Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 22:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

2013 economic figures
Hi, Is there a source for this? The new numbers are very different from what the IMF says. bobrayner (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been added again. Bosnian Control, do you have a source for these numbers? I recognise that lots of people like to play with different numbers on this article, but our articles should be based on sources. Changing numbers so that they contradict a source is a Bad Thing. bobrayner (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Bosnian Control, the numbers you keep on adding are different to the numbers in the source. I will remove them unless/until you find a better source. bobrayner (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

modern-day BiH
Why does the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina on this page end at the war in 1995? Stuff has happened in 20 years since the war ended. Such as the ongoing 2014 Bosnia and Herzegovina social riots--Sabahudin9 (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarians built 3 Catholic churches of only 20 Catholic churches in Bosnia?
Quite incorrect.

There are and there were many more Catholic churches in Bosnia. http://www.bosnasrebrena.ba/v2010/povijest-provincije/bosna-srebrena-kroz-povijest-karte.html

Even should it be limited to that period of time, Franciscans also mention building 40 NEW churches and 20 schoolrooms in the span of 15 years, between 1866-1881. http://www.bosnasrebrena.ba/v2010/povijest-provincije/franjevci-u-bosni-za-turske-vladavine/od-mileticeve-smrti-do-austrougarske-okupacije-1831-1878.html

"Za vrijeme fra Paškala Vujičića (15 godina) podignuto je oko 40 novih crkava i vrlo mnogo župnih stanova te preko 20 školskih učionica. Neke od tih crkava blistaju ljepotom i veličinom, tako npr. crkva livanjskog samostana, svojim impozantnim masama i skladno oblikovanim prostorom, i toliška (najveća u cijeloj Bosni i Hercegovini, duga 56, a široka 20 metara).

Also, nearly all churches were financed and built by the local population, not by foreigners.

''Odakle novac za toliku gradnju?

'' Obratili su se dobročiniteljima izvana. Svećenstvo u Austriji skupilo je između sebe preko 20.000 forinti; znatno manja svota skupljena je od ostalih. Francuska vlada dala je 13.000 franaka (od toga - 5.000 franaka za učionice). Srpska vlada i napuljski kralj dali su po 100 dukata.

''Ipak, najvažniji doprinos dali su sami bosanski vjernici, najčešće u dobrovoljnom radu (na tisuće nadnica) ali, koliko su mogli, i od svoje sirotinje. Bosanski katolički puk uvijek je bio velikodušan kad se radilo o gradnji crkava; - Biskup fra Marijan Šunjić zasnovao je već g. 1857. na župama odličnu ustanovu "Kovčežić za gradnju" s dva ključa (jedan za župnika a drugi za predstavnika puka); u njega će se skupljati milodari za gradnju, zavjeti, takse koje će se uplaćivati za oproste od ženidbenih zapreka, milostinja skupljana pod misom u određeno vrijeme i dr. Tako su crkve podignute ipak prvenstveno trudom i znojem bosanskih katolika."'' --37.203.109.236 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding church numbers, your source mentions 40, OK. But, regarding financing, your source doesn´t specify how much locals donated, and mentions first and foremost foreign donations. Then it says that major contribution was done by locals by volunteer workhand and by contributing (financially) as much as they could. So not much encouraging for the conclusions you want to make. FkpCascais (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Very interesing that Serbian governament donated money for building Caholic churches in Bosnia. FkpCascais (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Calling of Bosnia and Herzgovina's government
Recent edits state that Bosnia and Herzegovina is a so called "international protectorate" and for the strawberry on the cake, an "autocracy"... Like, really?! The state has it's own institutes, parliaments and all other governments bodies that support a "democratic parliamentary republic" therefore calling Bosnia a "Protectorate" is derogatory. This should really be changed. Thanks in advance. Whats your opinion on this? Hazbulator™ 17:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion, but I think the editor who made this edit,, does. The edit is problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which is a. they're citing a review of a book, not the book itself, and b. that review mentions the word "protectorate" once without indicating what happened afterward. And while, as the editor says, the publication has an article here (Peace Magazine), that doesn't make it a peer-reviewed academic source whose objectivity can be taken for granted. So I fully agree with 's revert. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for discussing. Please note that there's nothing derogatory about the term protectorate, on the contrary. But most importantly, it's not just "a review of a book". Reputable sources that call Bosnia and Herzegovina a protectorate are many indeed, are scientific, and highly reputable. Many were used years ago when settling the international community's extra-judicial dictate. I don't think we must re-discuss the already settled issues in each article's Talk over and over again. Nonetheless, I can stack up dozens of such references each time I state the government type. That's really not a problem since there are plenty of such sources as I said, however it would make articles look kinda ugly? Overdtop (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the discussion which you are referring to when stating that it has been settled that Bosnia should be referred to as a "protectorate"? There is no discussion on this subject on the talk page of Talk:High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina where you link.  TDL (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I said there are numerous references stating BH regime type as protectorate, many of which can be found in another discussion linked above. Overdtop (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And the link to that another discussion "linked above" is where exactly? <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 01:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself; indeed, why does this article incorrectly call the regime a republic if the Bosnian constitution says Bosnia is not a republic any longer? Weird stuff. 174.112.188.155 (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Federal Parlimentary Republic
How make Reference 1 (footnote 1), Article IV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geojr1955 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Federal Parlimentary Republic
How make Reference 1 (footnote 1), Article IV?Geojr1955 (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)George Wisser Jr 20150101

Protected edit request on 25 February 2015
You protected the page Bosnia and Herzegovina as edits were being made, thus resulting in a reference missing in the Infobox. The red warning message on top of a level-4 (nation) article looks very bad. Not to mention that you now froze a non-sourced claim by someone that Bosniaks (presumably mostly Muslim) make majority in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which I was trying to revert which may look like violation of 3R rule but only because no one is watching the page but me and I don't have admin privileges to block IP and other vandals...

Sevvyan (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the missing reference warning, but... What you have done now is fixing the reference warning while allowing a potentially disastrous edit for at least a week. The reference is to a gossip website www.doznajemo.com (Bosnian for: This Just In), on their allegedly exclusive access to new census data in Bosnia. The data are sealed by the government and international peace implementation council because it's the first census since before the bloodshed of 1990s. Their "exclusive" information would have the extremely sensitive balance of ethnic groups heavily disturbed. Please remove that edit/provocation immediately and revert to the CIA World Factbook reference, or unlock the article. Sevvyan (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Where is this reference? Can you quote the passage in which it appears?  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 08:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Luckily, it was reverted in the meantime back to the CIA ref. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 February 2015
Thanks for fixing the missing reference warning, but... What you have done is fixing the reference warning while allowing a potentially disastrous edit for at least a week. The reference is to a gossip website www.doznajemo.com (Bosnian for: This Just In), on their allegedly exclusive access to new census data in Bosnia. The data are sealed by the government and international peace implementation council because it's the first census since before the bloodshed of 1990s. Their "exclusive" information would have the extremely sensitive balance of ethnic groups heavily disturbed. Please remove that edit/provocation immediately and revert to the CIA World Factbook reference, or unlock the article.


 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Same as two sections before.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 08:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Luckily, it was reverted in the meantime back to the CIA ref. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Serbo-Croat nationalists' orchestrated attack on a contributed reference and a historical thesis
A relevant discussion on the long-time thesis in historic sciences, which states that the Hungary's founding House of Árpád had right to Bosnia so that Bosnia's first legal/legitimate ruler Ban Borić and Hungarian prince Boris Kalamanos were the same person, can be found here. Serbo-Croat nationalists keep fighting the thesis for centuries now because it denies them any rights over Bosnia. They are trying to project the same view here on Wikipedia too, attempting to censor even the mentioning of the thesis. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 February 2015
Add
 * ethnic_groups_year = 2013est.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fremantle99 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —  00:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

GDP wrong
GDP total and per capita are wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timur13 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of "Status" in Infobox?
The "Status" attribute in the Infobox is indicated as "Cultural hegemony", with no source indicated. Is that in keeping with NPOV? There appear to be no other country Infoboxes containing this label.

Also, is the "Status" attribute itself defined somewhere in the documentation for the Infobox country template? Is it used in other country articles also? Bistropha (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * One editor is insisting on adding that against consensus, Bistropha. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And they have now been blocked. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * He doesn't agree with any of my edits because I am Serb and sends me to edit soccer? Its really incredible how long his nonsense stayed around in this and other related articles so long. He got blocked, finally, with such attitude I can just imagine what other editors discussing with him experienced. FkpCascais (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * lol Keep up the good work of exposing Wikipedia for what it is -- a geopolitical weapon. 77.238.217.166 (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)