Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina/Archive 4

Protected edit request on 26 February 2015

 * 1) The language of BH is not "a". It is Serbo-Croatian; you can report it as Bosnian, as two languages (Bosnian and Serbian) or other variants. But it certainly isn't defined by a lowercased A.
 * 2) The "Usurped" box doesn't make any sense. Part of it is correct, but the information belongs to the history section, part of it is senseless: the Dayton accords did most definitely not give Bosnia-Herzegovina to the Holy See. A protected page should serve to limit vandalism, not to preserve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Complainer  (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC


 * Comment: The article is about Bosnia and Herzegovina as arranged in Dayton and Paris; note there is no such thing as "Serbo-Croatian" in the Dayton Accords/General Framework, there are Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian as languages of the GF and therefore of the constitution as an integral part (Annex 4) of the GF. See the CIA World Factbook on Bosnia and Herzegovina, you'll see that the BSC are official languages of BH. "a" was the name of the footnote which was mistakenly left alone. BH is under the Holy See sovereignty, hence it has only Roman Catholic overlords called High Representatives. This is "simply so", as codified in numerous components of the international legal order, but not necessarily in documents under the current framework aka the International Law of the UN. It's largely unspoken ("the law of the strong" arranging relations between great (UN-veto) powers that are above the UN framework because they de facto created and guarantee the UN its existence/authority by their free/good will; not to be confused for "the law of the stronger" as in slang). Sevvyan (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I really think you need to elaborate the statement "BH is under the Holy See sovereignty, hence it has only Roman Catholic overlords called High Representatives."; it does sound highly contentious. It is also not to wikipedia standards to leave:

complainer (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) A box for notes. If these are notes, they should be formatted as such
 * 2) Statements that are highly controversial like that BH was transferred to the House of Savoy (which, to my knowledge, only ruled part of today's Croatia), the House of Windsor and the Holy See, completely unsourced.
 * 3) The Holy See, albeit light years away from even resembling a democracy, is certainly not a monarchy anyway. Leaving it in such a box makes no sense.


 * It may sound as, or even be contentious within the International Law of the UN standards as well as from humanitarianism viewpoint, however it's entirely acceptable outside that framework, i.e. to the great powers (UN's veto-members) who are above the UN. Wikipedia is not limited by political boundaries, or at least I couldn't find any such rule.  Not sure what you mean by formatting notes box?  Greater Croatia (today's Croatia and Bosnia) was under the sovereignty of a king from the House of Savoy during WW2.  According to the source itself: "Vatican City State is governed as an absolute monarchy". Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what this stuff about the Holy See is about. Yes, the High Representative is a powerful institution (although those powers have not been extensively utilised in recent years), but what that has to do with the Holy See is lost on me. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To call it simply "powers" is an understatement; he's an absolutist viceroy in the true meaning. While he may or may not exercise them in a given era (same as, say, Queen Elizabeth II though not an absolutist), his absolute powers are constitutional, and can't be taken away except by his monarch. Sevvyan (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Have a read of WP:VERIFY and when you've found some reliable sources for that, come back with a suggestion for what you want to add to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said, that goes for unspoken right of the strong (UN-veto powers), as codified in various documents of international legal order outside International Law of UN. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. —   00:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A Wiki-schmucky consensus about the Charter of the UN? lol 77.238.214.13 (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Official languages
Let's try to reach agreement on the language issue. There are quite a lot of sources that state that Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian are the official languages, but there are also reliable sources that state that there is no official language - see this and this, which lists BiH under "No official language; no national language; provisions for all". Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This source suggests that Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian are now official languages in both the Federation and the RS. Should we add that to the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, reading more of that source from p. 111 onwards, it would provide a good source for the whole language issue. It essentially says that there are no de jure official languages, but that the three are official de facto. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since there were no objections to the use of these secondary sources, I have made some changes to the text of the article based on them. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So your attempt to impose the officially non-existent "Serbo-Croatian" as official language of Bosnia has failed again. Hey I know, why don't you try it in Serbia and Croatia articles, for change? lol 185.13.240.56 (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was that addressed at me? I haven't mentioned Serbo-Croatian as an official language in Bosnia. I've cited sources stating that the de facto official languages are Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No to Mickey Mouse. You mean like when you reverted to Serbo-Croatian? lol 77.238.217.166 (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I reverted to the stable version of the article and said that this needed to be discussed here on the talk page, following Wikipedia policy. I then suggested an alternative approach here, which doesn't mention Serbo-Croatian as an official language, and which has now been implemented in the article infobox and text. If you have any issues with the current (rather than past) wording of the article, please raise them here. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Stable lol. It is you who reverted to Serbo-Croatian as that's the manipulation you wanted promoted. 77.238.220.247 (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As you can see from my comments above, and my subsequent edits, I have supported a version of the text that describes BiH's official languages as described in reliable sources (which is as "Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian", not as "Serbo-Croatian"). In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have reverted to the version that described the official language as Serbo-Croatian, but there was a lot of edit warring and it was difficult to judge which version was the stable one. Either way, I support the current wording of the official languages description (obviously, as I wrote it). Cordless Larry (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "In retrospect..." lol 77.238.214.13 (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have nothing more to add. My proposals here and subsequent actions demonstrate that I support the "Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian" wording. Perhaps you could reserve your efforts for debating people you actually disagree over content with. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Too many photos Suggestion
Counter to MOS:Images, I'm feeling overwhelmed by the number of images in this article. Anyone care to help me trim them down? Stevetauber (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. The montages "Various parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina" and "Various tourist attractions" aren't helping and are amongst the prime candidates to go, for me. They could be replaced with one or two individual images each. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made a start by removing quite a few images and repositioning others to try to help improve the flow of the text. More need to be removed though, especially in the early part of the article. Anyone who disagrees with my choice of images to remove should feel free to revert me. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not simply removing and repositioning, that's editing with political agenda. You removed pretty much everything of value for Bosnia, like photos of world renown Edin Džeko, but left that of an anonymous tennis player. Then you've removed the photo of Oscar winning Danis Tanović, but left those of s less renown director and even a musician's. Then you removed the really relevant photo from last year's protests, as well as many most relevant photos: amazing landscapes, history, politics, military, war, etc. To make things worse, you even added some totally unrelated photos, like that of Elizabeth of Bosnia though she never ruled Bosnia but another country, and so on. What a joke. Clearly not good-faith editing. You should revert your edits yourself or someone else will. 77.238.214.166 (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no agenda, but like I've already said, anyone should feel free to revert my edits if they think they're unbalanced. You seem to have mistaken me for someone else as there was no image of Tanović for me to remove (I would probably have left it in if there was) and I didn't add Elizabeth of Bosnia. I did remove the image of Džeko, but that was because it was of very poor quality. I'll see if I can find a better one of him to use in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How many photos should the article have? Maybe we can start there and figure out what we should cover. Stevetauber (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I could put a number on it, but I think a good rule of thumb is that there shouldn't be overlapping left- and right-aligned images such that the text is sandwiches by them on either side. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear (not)... a Serbo-Croat virtual café. Always wondered why mostly Serb and Croat editors edit this article on another country. Busted lol 185.13.242.4 (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am neither Serb nor Croat, but even if I was, that's not a barrier to me editing this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not Serbian or Croatian either, but as Cordless Larry said, that doesn't matter. I love the Balkans and I want them represented to the best of wikipedia's abilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevetauber (talk • contribs) 09:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The removal of the pictures just damages the view of the article. Everything, in simple words, fit well with the content of the article, therefore, for the best, in my point of view, is to revert the changes. KalyEV. (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Which changes? There were FAR too many photos before. Perhaps a gallery section would be okay but the article was heavily distracting before. Stevetauber (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was clearly in breach of MOS:IMAGELOCATION, which states "avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between an image and infobox, navigation template, or similar", and that issue couldn't be resolved without removing some images. To be honest, I still think there are too many images in the article. It's very crowded. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I, myself as a Bosnian, feel insulted as some of the editors just play with the countries picture values, which damages the popularity of the country itself. Considering that the rules were breached, you don't have to remove simply everything that's considered highly valued for Bosnia, and positioning everything to the right side, In my point of view, is un-profession. KalyEV. (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if my attempts to make the article compliant with Wikipedia policy offend you. There is nothing stopping you from attempting the task yourself - I even said that I was happy to be reverted if anyone objected to my choice of images to remove. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How about KalyEV reverts the removed images but maintains right alignment. Then we can look at limited the post to a number of images that makes sense for the size of the article. Stevetauber (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130907102255/http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L23677389 to http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L23677389
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150810123722/http://www.un.org/icty/cases-e/index-e.htm to http://www.un.org/icty/cases-e/index-e.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Overlong section
The section on the Bosnian War is unjustifiably long. If one looks at articles about countries that also experienced traumatic, nation-defining wars (e.g. Vietnam, Croatia, etc.) it becomes painfully obvious that too much weight is given to the details of the Bosnian war as opposed to the actual country of Bosnia and Herzegovina (which is the main topic of the article). I suggest shortening the section to two paragraphs or so. It should read more or less like this:


 * 1) Economic problems facilitated the rise of nationalist parties. Provide context and mention the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. Mention that democratic, multi-party elections and a referendum on independence were held (and mention the results of both)
 * 2) Fighting started in early 1992 and descended into full-blown war, with Sarajevo being shelled by Serb forces in March–April
 * 3) The JNA withdrew in mid-1992. Serbia and Croatia financially, military and politically supported rebellions within the country. Campaigns of ethnic cleansing were conducted throughout the country, carried out mostly by Serb militias; concentration camps were established by Serb forces and to a lesser degree by Croats and Bosniaks, etc.
 * 4) UN peacekeepers were introduced
 * 5) The Bosniak–Croat split lead to outright war between these two groups, briefly mention the killing and deportation of Muslims by Croats, the destruction of the Old Bridge, etc.
 * 6) The Bosniaks and Croats made peace in early 1994 and united against Serbs
 * 7) Several peace plans were proposed between 1992 and 1995
 * 8) The Srebrenica massacre occurred in July 1995, it was the worst massacre in Europe since World War II and multiple courts have declared it a crime of genocide
 * 9) NATO began bombing in August 1995 (following the shelling of the Markale market) and this (combined with joint Bosniak–Croat offensives in the northwest of the country) brought the Serbs to the negotiating table
 * 10) The war ended with the Dayton Agreement, which split the country along ethnic lines and legitimized the Federation of BiH and Republika Srpska, thus decentralizing the country as a whole
 * 11) Brief aftermath: "The war led to the deaths of 100,000 people; 2 million were displaced; "x" amount of people were raped and "xyz" amount of economic damage inflicted". BiH sued Serbia for genocide; the ICJ ruled in 2007 that Serbia failed to prevent genocide in Srebrenica, though it stopped short of finding the country guilty of committing genocide as such. A number of individuals have been tried by the ICTY for crimes committed during the war, and hundreds of other cases have been transferred to Bosnian courts.

All this can be covered in about two paragraphs of 12–15 sentences each. Anything more is really really going into too much detail. These country articles aren't meant to provide detailed accounts, only brief summaries. If someone wants more info on the Bosnian War, Wikipedia has a separate article for that. 23 editor (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Corruptive edits by user "23editor"
Should I at all be surprised 23editor? We've been through numerous similiar situations in the past, and the story is always the same: the corruption and deliberate misrepresentation of sources in order to downplay war crimes associated with Serbs throughout history. 1) There is no "copy-paste-issue" here. The source by Mojzes has nothing to do with neither Žerjavić or Kočović. The source in question was originally added by me in this article, and I did later also make a represenation of it in the Chetniks article, but without ever meddling with neither scholar mentioned by you. That must have occured without my involvment. 2) The source by Mojzes is a highly reliable work since it represents a joint initative gathering dozens of scholars from throughout the Balkans with the purpose of reaching a consesus on contentious history. On page 98, it is written: "The total estimate of Muslims killed by Četniks is between 80,000 and 100,000, most likely about 86,000, or 6.7 percent of their population". I challenge you to verify this if you refuse to take my word for it! I've restored the source while also preserving and accurately reflecting the sources/estimates added by you (of course lower-end estimates). Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 20:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I revisited Mojzes now and found that he cites an article by Mirković for the claim in question, who in turn cites Kocovic. However, Mojzes does appear to have miscited Mirkovic who points out the figure by Kocovic to be the total number of Muslim casualties, and not only those at the hand of Chetniks. I will make revisions as appropriate. Note: Your summary in the edit history is really substandard in this aspect. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 20:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Mojzes cites Damir Mitrović, who correctly states that Žerjavić calculated 103,000 Muslims (what we'd call Bosniaks today) were killed throughout Yugoslavia during the war (not just in Bosnia-Herzegovina). Žerjavić doesn't attribute all, or even most, of these deaths to the Chetniks. Kočović puts the figure of dead Muslims at 86,000, including 75,000 that were killed on the territory of BiH (Žerjavić also says 75,000 Muslims were killed in BiH; see Cohen, pp. 110–11). All is clearly elucidated in Geiger's paper. Neither Žerjavić nor Kočović attribute anywhere near 86,000–103,000 dead to the Chetniks. The total number killed by the Chetniks in the NDH (both Muslims and Croats, soldiers and civilians) is closer to 50,000 according to Žerjavić. Quote: "Žerjavić’s calculations and estimates on the number of those whose death in Croatia’s territory was caused by the Chetniks/JVuO are different. Žerjavić’s initial figures in 1994 were that the Chetniks/JVuO were responsible for the death of approximately 20,000 persons on Croatia’s territory and approximately 45,000 persons – about 12,000 Croats and 33,000 Muslims – in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, for a total of approximately 65,000 persons. According to Žerjavić’s later figures, in the territory of the NDH the Chetniks/JVuO were responsible for the death of approximately 47,000 persons, of whom 18,000 were Croats and approximately 29,000 were Muslims. [Geiger, 86] "

Hence, the figure of about 30,000 Muslims deaths attributable to the Chetniks. Now please revert yourself. 23 editor (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As I said, you did a GREAT job explaining yourself in the edit summary. Hats off to you! Mojzes cites Dragan Mirkovic, not "Damir Mitrovic", I got the article on my screen right as we speak, not that it matters. And formulations along the lines of "what we'd call Bosniaks today" doesn't fly in my book since I'm not convinced by nationalist bigotry claiming that Bosniaks sprung out of nowhere in 1993. Rest assured you can adress them as Bosniaks in regard to 1942 as well. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 21:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Your insinuation that I'm a nationalist bigot isn't the first (nor, I'm sure, will it be the last) of your vitriolic jabs against me. If you feel that Muslims during WWII should be referred to as Bosniaks, then feel free to consult with, an editor I've been collaborating with on WWII-related articles, for a third opinion. You'll find that our policy has been to refer to them as Muslims as that is what most sources call them in this context. 23 editor (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind them being refered to as "Muslims" in articles pertaining to to WWII since I'm sure the related literature mostly refers to them as such (however this poses the obvious risk of obscuring the fact we are dealing with an ethnic, and not religious group). It remains no great secret the Bosniak/Bosnian identity was vibrantly opposed by Serb and Croat nationalists of the time claiming Bosnia as either "Serb" or "Croat". This really came about with the romantic nationalism of the 1800s, through the Serbianisation and Croatisation of the Orthodox and Catholic in Bosnia, and to its culmination in the 1990s. Serb and Croat cadres in power were only prepared to acknowledge the obvious, their majority Muslim faith, and little else. Hence, my point was it doesn't make Bosniak any less factual, or authentic if you like. Either way, I'm not looking to discuss this. I made a mistake today on account of your half-arsed edit summary. Considering some of your conduct from earlier, I did have reason to act with suspiscion, but as they say even the worst can improve. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 22:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Too much images
Hi, i think this page has way too many images, can someone remove some? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albatalar (talk • contribs) 22:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This was discussed above, Albatalar. I agree with you, but there was previously some resistance to reducing the number of images. I don't know if more have crept in since I reduced the number following that discussion, but looking at the article again now, I personally think that a further trim is in order. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I disagree because you cannot choose – let’s say – 10 out of 10,000 "important" images if one article would have been that long and topic that much wide (just example). Point is that if this article should have 50 or 100 images (again, let’s say), we cannot reduce to 5 or 10 but to 20 or 30 considering size of an article and everything that is important for country-related topic that’s always wide...
 * Particularly, VW manufacturing is a nice part of BiH history (and important, not all world countries had automobile factories), so it should stay. --Obsuser (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There are many other things that Bosnia has that other countries don't have. Can you suggest another image to remove if you want the VW one to remain, so that we can deal with the fact that the sheer number of images is making the article less accessible? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. In my opinion it would be good to remove:
 * "A Bosnian trooper aims at the target with an M4 carbine" (and maybe "ISAF Bosnian troops hold their national flag") because article is too much focused on war-depicting images and there are three of them for one small section
 * "Sparkasse Bank of Tuzla" as it is not special by anything (just an ordinary bank building) + enlarge [not remove, only enlarge] graphics from the right and maybe move it down to fill that blank space (from Overall value... section down to the "11% other" bullet)
 * "Bosnian pony on stamp of SFR Yugoslavia" and "The chamois, Rupicapra rupicapra, is a ... to come from Bosnia" also as animals are not related directly to geography and simply do not fit there
 * "Trebinje, on the banks of the Trebišnjica", "Panoramic view of Željeznica river at Ilidža near Sarajevo" and "Prokoško Lake in the municipality of Fojnica" as there are too many images in this part; move Mostar bridge to show panoramic view (instead of Željeznica river) as it Mostar bridge is very important and should be somehow emphasized (this is a nice way)
 * move [not remove] "Stećci from Radimlja..." to the left side, next to the art section; maybe "Emir Kusturica and Goran Bregovic" also to the left


 * "Bosnian meat platter" is not suitable for "Sports" section, so move it left to the "Cuisine" section (except if you consider eating these and watching some sports... )


 * At the end, make "Gallery" section at the bottom (before "See also"), and place there all of those removed images + add some other that are important and/or interesting (so we have in gallery about 20 images).


 * These are my suggestions. If you disagree, say so we can work out solution (for every case/image separately). --Obsuser (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120703180910/http://www.utoronto.ca/tsq/03/vinko.shtml to http://www.utoronto.ca/tsq/03/vinko.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140701210204/http://phron.org/Reference/Books/Balkans%20-%20post%20communist%20history.pdf to http://phron.org/Reference/Books/Balkans%20-%20post%20communist%20history.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060906063642/http://www.ingentaconnect.com:80/content/klu/eujp/2005/00000021/F0020002/00006852 to http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/eujp/2005/00000021/F0020002/00006852
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140207102210/http://www.klix.ba/gradjanski-bunt to http://www.klix.ba/gradjanski-bunt
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141112035919/http://www1.law.nyu.edu/eecr/vol7num2/special/bosnia.html to http://www1.law.nyu.edu/eecr/vol7num2/special/bosnia.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150925092959/http://agdm.fuen.org/mitglied-102/bosnia-and-herzegovina/ to http://agdm.fuen.org/mitglied-102/bosnia-and-herzegovina/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un.org/icty/cases-e/index-e.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Brcko District part of Republika Srpska?
I thought that Brcko District was neither a part of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina nor Republika Srpska. However, Proposed secession of Republika Srpska article has a map where Brcko Districe is included in Republika Srpska. So which one is true? 141.136.243.106 (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Brcko District is not part of Federation nor RS and has its own government, but is considered vital by the Serbs, since without control of Brcko RS is split into two separate teritories. Hrulj (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That map actually doesnt include entire Brčko district into Rep. Srpska, but the half of the district that prior Dayton belonged to RS (thr Brčko corridor). Brčko district was formed roughly half from RS territory, half from FBIH territory, and in hipothetical case of secession the district would be divided into it's old borders as well. FkpCascais (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The caption says "Topographical map of Republika Srpska". If it is a hypothetical case of secession that should be explained and sources for such map should be provided. 141.138.27.198 (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

CENZUS OF POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS AND DWELLINGS IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, 2013 FINAL RESULTS
This official document can be found on the following link: http://www.popis2013.ba/popis2013/doc/Popis2013prvoIzdanje.pdf

This site needs some updating as most of info is outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihavejustchangedstuff (talk • contribs) 05:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563626/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224155630/https://features.us.reuters.com:80/destinations/news/L20239376.html to http://features.us.reuters.com/destinations/news/L20239376.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563626/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/SPEECHES/ispeech_president_higgins_bhy_20070226.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lonelyplanet.com/press-centre/press-release.cfm?press_release_id=444

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150418174843/http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_37356.htm to http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_37356.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150605052623/http://www.ohr.int/ohr-dept/presso/chronology/bulletins/default.asp?content_id=4991 to http://www.ohr.int/ohr-dept/presso/chronology/bulletins/default.asp?content_id=4991#8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

"plain topography"
Be careful of the phrase "plain topography" topography because "plain" has two distinctive meanings. A). Kansas, Saskatchewan, and Holland have "plain topography" because they are flat. B). Kentucky and Alabama have "plain topography" because there is absolutely nothing distinctive about it - not too high, not too low, no Great Lakes, no Mojave Desert, no Everglades, no canyons, no volcanoes, and no Rocky Mountains.47.215.211.115 (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Bosnia and Herzegovina anthem.ogg
File:Bosnia and Herzegovina anthem.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618040332/http://www.kakarigi.net/manu/briefhis.htm to http://www.kakarigi.net/manu/briefhis.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228191656/http://secnet069.un.org/x/cases/prlic/ind/en/prl-ii040304e.htm to http://secnet069.un.org/x/cases/prlic/ind/en/prl-ii040304e.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522132353/http://csce.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=UserGroups.Home&ContentRecord_id=250&ContentType=G&ContentRecordType=G&UserGroup_id=5&Subaction=ByDate to http://csce.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=UserGroups.Home&ContentRecord_id=250&ContentType=G&ContentRecordType=G&UserGroup_id=5&Subaction=ByDate
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203232759/http://www.idc.org.ba/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&id=35&Itemid=126&lang=bs to http://www.idc.org.ba/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&id=35&Itemid=126&lang=bs
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563626/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126024355/http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/potential-candidate-countries/bosnia_and_herzegovina/eu_bosnia_and_herzegovina_relations_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/potential-candidate-countries/bosnia_and_herzegovina/eu_bosnia_and_herzegovina_relations_en.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111121065147/http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010%2C1034.html to http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010%2C1034.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2017
Heeey, the native of Bosnia and Herzegovina by any means cannot be simoly Bosnian. People in Herzegovina are really ofended by that. Bosnian and Herzegovinian are only regional terms. National terms are what defiens people here, so Croat, Serb or Bosniak. Also, stating that the country was known only as Bosnia before Austria-Hungary empire is false. The region of Bosnia was never independent so it was not country. Herzegovina region was known as Hum. Same thing, also a region, also nkt independent. Please remove these ambiogous parts from your article. Thanks 93.180.98.206 (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  JTP (talk • contribs) 20:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The GDP/capita is not the same as in the reference
the reference says 11,034.187, but the article says 16000-something. Please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.145.124 (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2017 BiH
77.121.29.93 (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2018
Bosnia is predominately a catholic country. Nordmann987123 (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected Edit Request on 5 Sept 2018
I think it would be appropriate to include a breakdown of the population of the FBiH and Republika Srpska and their respective proportions of the population of BiH, which can be found in the English Wikipedia article "2013 Population Census in Bosnia and Herzegovina" as well as the official government document "Popis stanovništva, domaćinstava, i stanova u Bosni i Hercegovini, 2013. Rezultati popisa. [Census of population, households and dwellings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2013. Final Results]".

Total in BiH: 3.531.159 (100,00), FBiH: 2.219.220 (62,85 p. 100), RS: 1.228.423 (34,79 p. 100), Brčko District (which is a jointly administered district which is part of neither entity): 83.516 (2,37 p. 100).

Abdulrahimb (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

MILORAD DODIK IS NOT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRESIDENCY
MILORAD DODIK IS NOT THE CHAIRMAN OF THEPRESIDENCY Dzaboek3 (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The 3 presidents could they be considered the same as the collegial system of Switzerland?
I just want to include directorial in the government description of this country just like is done with Switzerland, but I'm not too sure if both the Presidency of B&H and the Swiss Federal Council would be considered similar. -- sion8 talk page 05:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * According to its Constitution, B&H is neither a republic nor is it ruled by the Presidency. The head of state is a foreign High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina with absolutist powers which he may or may not use (it's up to him). Therefore, your equating of B&H with a directorial republic is your own POV. You papists should stop deleting this Talk post. Justouting (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "You papists should stop deleting this Talk post."? What does this mean? - sion8 Flag_of_Barranquilla.svg talk page 02:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ignore it, . Justouting has been blocked as just another sock of Bosnipedian. See Sockpuppet investigations/Bosnipedian/Archive for the history of the case. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Who's that?SciPedian (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Not federal, nor republic, and certainly not parliamentary. What a joke of a colony (and of hiding it is one)!
Infobox states Government type as "Federal parliamentary constitutional republic", but according to its Constitution so-called, Bosnia and Herzegovina is neither federal nor republic. And it's parliamentary body is not called a Parliament as throughout the text, but Parliamentary Assembly - same as with all non-sovereign/protectorate entities under international law (NATO, OSCE, Northern Ireland...). Also, Chairperson of Council of Ministers is erroneously called Prime Minister (Council is not a Government - as its "ministers" are just deputies of 2 administrative Entities who can't be dismissed by a "Prime Minister" as a mere colonial puppet-clown). Furthermore, Infobox states fake sources including CIA World Factbook as the source for the above and other ridiculous claims. But CIA is not a scientific source! Even worse, you can often hear US military brass mocking CIA as "Catholics In Action"... So, which should an encyclopedia go for - the idiotic blend between Gestapo and SS that the CIA is (remember WMD in Iraq?), or a Constitution even if so-called? I say Constitution, even if a so-called one, especially because it was used as a source throughout the article - but not in this case. Why? Oh well, papists would like to secede, for which they need the country made federal first, obviously. The fake sources claim Bosnia is a federation though the English (the only relevant) version of the Dayton Accords defines BiH as a state that ...shall consist of the two Entities... (Article I-3) not one that shall be composed of the two Entities as the fake references claim. On the other hand, countless scientific references by leading experts in international law call Bosnia only a US-led protectorate. , and a state cannot exist in several regimes simultaneously! As papists are misusing their influence in CIA/NSA to push for their agenda in the Balkans, Wikipedia and its readers are taken for a ride. Important but biased statements like on government type of a country must be removed from the article immediately. Not-so-dear Nazis: how much longer do you plan on hiding that you have been trying to re-colonize Bosnia - Europe's oldest nation? This article is a sheer monstrosity, and the most obvious proof ever that Wikipedia is just another geopolitical tool - a pitiful excuse for modern-day colonialism. 31.185.125.60 (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Flag of Mauritania.svg

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2019
Cokoja (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

the first sentence need to changed i.e. instead of: " Bosnia and Herzegovina (/ˈbɒzniə ... ˌhɛərtsəɡoʊˈviːnə, -ˌhɜːrt-, -ɡə-/ (About this soundlisten) or /ˌhɜːrtsəˈɡɒvɪnə/;[12][13] Serbo-Croatian:        Bosna i Hercegovina [BiH] / Боснa и Херцеговина [БиХ]), sometimes called Bosnia–Herzegovina, and often known informally as Bosnia, is a country in Southeastern Europe, located within the Balkan Peninsula." NEED TO BE " Bosnia and Herzegovina (/ˈbɒzniə ... ˌhɛərtsəɡoʊˈviːnə, -ˌhɜːrt-, -ɡə-/ (About this soundlisten) or /ˌhɜːrtsəˈɡɒvɪnə/;[12][13] Bosnian - Serbo-Croatian: Bosna i Hercegovina [BiH] / Боснa и Херцеговина [БиХ]), sometimes called Bosnia–Herzegovina, and often known informally as Bosnia, is a country in Southeastern Europe, located within the Balkan Peninsula." The word BOSNIAN MUST BE ADDED -as it is according the Constitution of BiH - the language of the majority of population (BOSNIAN)
 * ❌. The correct venue for this change request is Talk:Serbo-Croatian. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Herzeg-Bosnia
My two references (revision) clearly show that Bosnia and Herzegovina was sometimes called Herzeg-Bosnia, but keeps reverting that information. Notrium (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your two references show that two people called it Herzeg-Bosnia a hundred years ago. To claim that Herzeg-Bosnia is a synonym for Bosnia and Herzegovina, or an alternative name, or a common name, or indeed any kind of English language name for the country points to either complete cluelessness or plain dishonesty. In any case, it reeks of revisionism and ethnic nationalism. Surtsicna (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the sources show that various people called it Herzeg-Bosnia a hundred years ago, as I said in the edit summaries. And you accuse me of "either complete cluelessness or plain dishonesty".
 * The sentence in question currently states that Bosnia and Herzegovina is "sometimes called Bosnia–Herzegovina". Merely adding to that "or Herzeg-Bosnia" is correct, as demonstrated by the references.
 * And of what kind of revisionism or nationalism does it reek?! Notrium (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it is not correct, because Bosnia and Herzegovina is not sometimes called Herzeg-Bosnia. Herzeg-Bosnia is something else entirely. The reference you cited makes it clear what Herzeg-Bosnia is. What kind of revisionism and ethnic nationalism this reeks of is made just as clear in that same reference. You are wasting everyone's time here. Surtsicna (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you then agree to saying that Bosnia and Herzegovina was sometimes called Herzeg-Bosnia (which is clear) if we also note the other, more regionally specific meaning? Notrium (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no regionally specific meaning. Herzeg-Bosnia was a discontinuous unrecognized state and its borders changed throughout the war. The term Herzeg-Bosnia has not been used to refer to Bosnia and Herzegovina at least since the Second World War. It was never an alternative or common name for the country in its current borders as proclaimed in 1943. It is not an alternative or common name for the modern country either. Nobody in the world refers to the country as Herzeg-Bosnia. So no, I would not agree with conflating the country with the unrecognized state. Surtsicna (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WW2 did not erase all previous events from history. You yourself now agree that the term Herzeg-Bosnia was used to refer to Bosnia and Herzegovina, but do not want it in the article ... ? I think you are not being consistent. Notrium (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let us not fantasize here. There was never a point in history when Herzeg-Bosnia was an official or widespread name for the country. Surtsicna (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

, how can you imply that I only provided "a single source from 1908"!!!? Even if you had not read my content that you removed, you could easily tell from the edit summaries that I had been adding even more references, so you did not even read the summaries! But why revert my edits, then; and how could you dare to delete something that you did not read (or its edit summary)?!!

Anyway, here is one more source:  Notrium (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That source is a folk music record... Not a reliable source on the alternative name of a country. The state is called Bosnia-Herzegovina or Bosnia and Herzegovina, and has been called that since 1943. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Area
BiH has area of 51 129 km2 http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosna_i_Hercegovina. What is the source for this area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceha (talk • contribs) 22:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sarajevo DWN02.jpg
 * Sarajevo MYHTW05.jpg

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * AFBiH OLS2018.jpg
 * MayaSar 2018 BL.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2019
Gold Lilly (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No actionable request. Spintendo  14:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Liberal democracy?
The "Government" section states that "Bosnia and Herzegovina is a liberal democracy"; however is this necessarily accurate, particularly in light of a Freedom House report that classifies BiH as "partly free"? May be a bit misleading. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 04:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the statement is questionable, possibly misleading. Although it is obvious Bosnia and Herzegovina is attemting to be a liberal democracy (ever since the Deyton Accords), I'm not sure if it's still improving toward that goal. BiH is heavily influenced by three religions, three neighboring countries (Croatia and Serbia) and Russia and Turkey who have strategic interests. These simple facts, combined with the weak position of the independent judiciary and ever-continuous rampant and systemic corruption, begs the question if it can be genuinely referred to as a liberal democracy. HoboDyerProjection (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130505053250/http://www.romereports.com/palio/Visionaries-of-Medjugorje-may-appear-before-the-Vatican-english-2441.html to http://www.romereports.com/palio/Visionaries-of-Medjugorje-may-appear-before-the-Vatican-english-2441.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018193841/http://sarajevo.usembassy.gov/country-commercial-guide.html to http://sarajevo.usembassy.gov/country-commercial-guide.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Languorrises (talk • contribs)
 * Okay, SineBot thinks I should have signed my edit. For clarity: the signature on InternetArchiveBot's post was removed at some point, so I added it back. —Languorrises (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Bosnia and Herzegovina's national anthem.ogg
File:Bosnia and Herzegovina's national anthem.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * --Obsuser (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Members of presidency
There is a current mistake regarding the nationality of the chairman and the members of presidency. Željko Komšić is a Croat but it is stated that he is a Serb. Šefik Džaferović is a Bosniak but it is stated that he is a Croat. Milorad Dodik is a Serb but it is not stated that he is one. This needs to be changed. BekirBuk (talk) 11:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * --Obsuser (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Preventing edit warring
Hi, Can we talk about this reverting, before this escalates into full scale edit war. Why do you think information doesn't deserve its place in the article? Mhare (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Misleading statements about Islam practiced
The article says (in the section Religion): The Islam practiced in the country is unlike that of the Middle East, for instance Christian men are allowed to marry a Muslim woman without converting to Islam, which is forbidden in traditional Islam.[127]

However, the Islamic Community of Bosnia and Herzegovina (official religion institution) clearly states that such practice is strictly forbidden.

The country's law is secular and no religious body can prevent inter-religious marriages. But those who practice Islam according to the guidelines of the Islamic Community are acknowledging that such marriages are not allowed. There is no proof that any of Islamic scholars in Bosnia are saying that such marriages are allowed, and no Muslims that practice Islam are saying that it's allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosna1700 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I changed the statements slightly to adjust for what the source actually says (which the previous phrasing didn't reflect properly), including that it was something that was common at least in the past, until the war. My guess is that people were more relaxed about religion before the war and therefore didn't follow their respective religions so strictly. The degree of religiousness is of course something each person chooses on a spectrum from very relaxed to very strict. So the source doesn't talk about what people are doing who follow their religion strictly (or are "allowed" to do according to religious scholars), but what people in general were doing at least until 1990. Are the statements as they are now acceptable to you? To me, they don't seem to contradict what you are saying. --Jhertel (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * This is still kind of not true. Before the war (1992) Yugoslavia recognized the ethnicity Muslims (not a religious group). Bosniaks (or Bosnian) weren't accepted as an official group. After the war nearly most Muslims started again declaring as Bosniak, and the term Muslim is now mostly exclusively a religious affiliation.


 * When someone would say (before 1990) that a Muslim-women and Croatian-man were married, they meant Bosniak-women and Croatian-man. Probably all of those marriages had no religious affiliation. Religious people had little place in the Communist Party, and those practiced Islam never accepted inter-religious marriage as a norm. Even the Muslim-man + other-religion-women marriages weren't and aren't that much practiced, even though they are allowed by traditional Islam.


 * Islam practiced in Bosnia is extremely similar to Islam in Turkey, with minor differences. The dynamic between non-practicing and practicing Bosniaks is most similar to the situation in Turkey.


 * It is safe to assume that the author of the source article didn't have enough knowledge about the difference between Yugoslavia's Muslim term as ethnicity and Muslims as a religious group. A lot of non-Bosniaks still use the term Muslim wrongly (still as an ethnic group), and if someone doesn't understand the difference he/she would think that someone who practices Islam is meant by that. Bosna1700 (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories
It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is part of that category. The relevant discussion is located at Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Krakkos (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Official languages in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Official languages in Bosnia and Herzegovina are not entity-level. De facto situation in some administrative units of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not necesarily the iure. Quote Valentin Inzko, High Representative in BiH: "The general framework for peace in BiH, signed in Paris 1995, contains a text on Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian language. It means that the peace agreement recognizes three official languages in BiH." end quote.

PS: According to Dayton peace agreement, the High representative is THE FINAL AUTHORITY for the explanation of the Agreement, therefore the correction regarding official languages in Bosnia and Herzegovina should be applied in accordance with this.

https://balkaneu.com/language-dispute-rs-higher-level/ Alenmahovic (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

http://www.vijeceministara.gov.ba/osnovne_informacije_o_bih/default.aspx?id=95&langTag=en-US Alenmahovic (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

https://www.parlament.ba/Content/Read/233?title=OBosniIHercegovini&lang=en Alenmahovic (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Access to the sea
The article states,"by international law, Bosnia and Herzegovina has a right of passage to the outer sea." What is the source for this statement?

Alternative names
Google home page in BiH states "Bosnia & Herzegovina". I think this is more oftenly used than "Bosnia–Herzegovina"; at least, remove bold from "Bosnia–Herzegovina" or add references for it. --5.43.72.55 (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Demonym(s)...
... is not Herzegovinian i.e. not "Bosnian, Herzegovinian". It is "Bosnian and Herzegovinian" or only "Bosnian". --5.43.72.55 (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bosnia (region) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion (not about the country—about the region) was closed 18 May 2021 as Not moved by . This notice added for clarity by — N eonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 04:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for section on science and technology
Hi, just a suggestion, many country articles have sections for 'science and technology', this could be a section on this article as well.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * See, as someone who is from this country, there is virtually nothing notable about this country that has contributed anything to science and technology whatsoever. I don't believe there is anything that we can add to that section IF we were to suddenly allow it to be created. Unless, if you can provide some credible evidence that Bosnia has made any scientific or technological contributions, I personally wouldn't want this to happen. Plus, considering that this article is somewhat as controversial as Kosovo given the recent events, there will be the possibility of an edit war and not everyone would want that. However, I'm still open to this idea!Balkanite (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Census results
It's not the ethnicity results from the census that are contested, but the results as a whole. I therefore suggest moving the following sentences out of the ethnic groups sub-section and to the end of the paragraph at the start of the demography section: "The census results are contested by the Republika Srpska statistical office and by Bosnian Serb politicians.[140] The dispute over the census concerns the inclusion of non-permanent Bosnian residents in the figures, which Republika Srpska officials oppose.[141] The European Union's statistics office, Eurostat, concluded in May 2016 that the census methodology used by the Bosnian statistical agency is in line with international recommendations.[142]"

You could also add that the RS statistical office has published its own, rival version of the results. Suggested references: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nana.12500 and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17449057.2020.1821335. 82.20.71.114 (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. A look at the three sources in those sentences seem to describe that the dispute's root cause is over the demographical makeup and how they categorize people. I think it's in the right place. Unless there's something the opposition is objecting that is not related to ethnicity, then it can be moved out. ◢ <i style="background-color:#F7E3F7; color:#960596"> Ganbaruby! </i>  (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The dispute is about more than just the ethnicity results. The RS authorities (NB not the opposition) reject the official results published by the state-level statistics office and have published their own. These give a different total population, not just a different ethnic composition. See https://www.sarajevotimes.com/republika-srpska-published-census-results/. 84.69.89.6 (talk) 09:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  13:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How would I go about establishing consensus? 84.69.89.6 (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe follow the advice at the linked page? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The proposal is to move the following sentences out of the ethnic groups sub-section and to the end of the paragraph at the start of the demography section: "The census results are contested by the Republika Srpska statistical office and by Bosnian Serb politicians.[140] The dispute over the census concerns the inclusion of non-permanent Bosnian residents in the figures, which Republika Srpska officials oppose.[141] The European Union's statistics office, Eurostat, concluded in May 2016 that the census methodology used by the Bosnian statistical agency is in line with international recommendations.[142]" and to add something like "The RS statistical office has published its own, rival version of the results". Suggested references: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nana.12500, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17449057.2020.1821335 and https://www.sarajevotimes.com/republika-srpska-published-census-results/.

This is necessary because it's not only the results on ethnicity that are contested - the RS government claims that there are fewer people overall in the country than the state-level statistics office and uses its own results on the territory of the RS. 84.69.89.6 (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment A total of three sources are offered above; onlinelibrary.wiley.com research paper; Ethnopolitics, a journal article, "Postmortem on a Stillborn Census: Bosnia–Herzegovina, 2013–16", and a very short article (in English) from sarajevotimes.com. The Ethonopolitics article could offer a useful analysis an comentary; unfortunately it's behind a steep paywall—forty U.S. dollars per article and sign-up for free access offers very few full text articles. Also, not available in the WikiLibrary card bundle. I lean toward No changes unless I can find more coverage that analyzes the data and methods used by the contending entities. The top-level government census reported in the onlinewileylibrary.com article is not matched in detail by the brief sarajevotimes.com source. — N eonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 03:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Edit the dispute obviously has some bearing on both the overall census figures and the ethnic breakdown (and may be contentious because it takes the Bosniak population slightly over the 50% mark). Consequently I've put a brief mention after the demography, and left the fuller exposition in 'Ethnic groups'. Hopefully this satisfies all and makes this RfC redundant. I would be opposed to the proposed change. Pincrete (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Demonym(s)
Demonym(s), or demonym, is Bosnian-and-Herzegovinian or Bosnian-Herzegovinian for more common term. Current infobox states Demonym(s) is(are) Bosnian, Herzegovinian. --5.43.74.120 (talk); 21:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2021
Section 8.2 line 5 change "label" to "libel" (sp.) Hakudama (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done RudolfRed (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It was useful. --5.43.74.120 (talk); 21:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Anthem of one note
If there are three presidents, state anthem must be one musical note so that all of them are happy. If there is variable text and/or music, one of them or two of them for e.g. are unhappy because they will desire better part to be first (before other two/one). --5.43.84.70 (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC) [e]

Broj stanovništva Bosne i Hercegovine
Kako je moguće da je navedeno da BIH ima 3. 824.000 stanovnika prema procjeni od jula 2021. kada svi preliminarni podaci pokazuju da danas ima između 2.700.000 i 2.800.000 stanovnika. TO TREBA ISPRAVITI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A05:4F46:C07:9D00:C8E7:8ED3:780E:70F1 (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2022
BROJ STANOVNIKA BOSNE JE KRIVO NAVEDEN.

BOSNA I HERCEGOVINA PREMA PROCJENAMA ANALITIČARA IMA OKO 2.700.000 STANOVNIKA.

https://faktor.ba/vijest/koliko-bih-ima-stanovnika-i-kome-vjerovati-analiticarima-ili-agenciji-za-statistiku/69582

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3JCLfbPtEQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A05:4F46:C07:9D00:C8E7:8ED3:780E:70F1 (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Need a better population estimate and source
The World Factbook is clearly not a reliable source for a population estimate. The margin of error of its estimate is several hundred thousands. The population in this region is decreasing rapidly. -Vipz (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've updated it with a much more realistic estimate (3,475,000) from Agency for Statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, latest available year of 2020. The next census should be next year iirc. Literally any uneducated guess between 3.2m and 3.5m would be much closer than what TWF from CIA states (over 3.8m). -Vipz (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * While I agree the World Factbook is probably not the best source, the World Bank is probably a better source than the local one given the tensions that surround censuses in B&H. The World Bank draws on a range of sources and projections. This gives the 2020 population as 3,280,815. It also says that the population hasn't been over 3.8 at any time since 2000. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to update it. I was on the look-out for a primary source for this estimate, because they deal with these calculations much more precisely with evidence to back them up. It's realistic that it's even lower than what I posted, but higher definitely not. -Vipz (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Directorial presidency
Isn't the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina technically a form of Directorial system? Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

notable people
needs to be a notable people tab 2600:1014:B1E3:EDF0:207B:6461:7075:1552 (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2022
Change 132th to 132nd. Ron Guff (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ RudolfRed (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2022
1	Islam	51% 2	Eastern Orthodox Christian	31% 3	Roman Catholic	15% 4	Other Beliefs	2% 5	Atheist or Agnostic	1%

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/religious-demographics-of-bosnia-and-herzegovina.html 2600:8800:500B:B00:81AC:DDBA:E9F0:3864 (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅, I've updated the country infobox with the religious figures given by the 2013 census, which is cited by your source. Unionsa1 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Altered the social outlook
Slavic people altered the social outlook but it's not mentioned! 105.67.3.169 (talk) 07:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for that, you can put it in, but be sure to explain what you mean by "altered the social outlook", as not everyone knows what that means.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Dictatorship? Democracy?
(Apologies for any basic mistakes I make in this area; I'm not familiar with the politics of general Bosnia and Herzegovina beyond what I can pick of from the articles themselves.)

I've noticed an inconsistency between what Wikipedia says and what most democracy indexes say about the state of democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The article describes the country as a "liberal democracy" and a "parliamentary representative democracy", and other articles use similar descriptions. In contrast, Democracy Index ranks it as a "hybrid regime" (5.04/10), Democracy Ranking a 47.5/100 (about halfway between Russia and Turkey), Freedom in the World says it is not an electoral democracy and ranks it as "partly free" and a "transitional or hybrid regime", the Democracy-Dictatorship Index says it's a "Civilian Dictatorship", and the Polity data series doesn't even put it in the regular rankings because it classifies the country as a "occupied state". These are just the first five rankings I checked, but I would be surprised if others indicated differently.

What is going on here? --Yair rand (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's because of the existence of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, who is not elected by the people. It demonstrates how the concept of 'democracy' is considered by various sources in various ways, it's not an entirely straightforward matter. --Joy (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So, why does the article just describe it as democratic without qualifications? --Yair rand (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Because no-one has edited it to reflect the nuances. The Freedom House profile is instructive . Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The article says it "is a liberal democracy" without a specific citation to that sentence, so it's appropriate to tag that with clarify. Note how if you read the laundry list of characteristics of liberal democracy there, BiH does satisfy the bulk of them, with the caveat of the high representative being able to veto a lot, which they don't - but when they do, it's a big deal. So it's an important facet, one that is documented in the article, but not in all relevant parts of it - let's fix it. --Joy (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Radio and Television of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BHRT) building, Sarajevo.jpg

Not me audit a class out of state,
Could be correcting me, 2600:1700:F2D0:5640:39AE:911D:9410:5CF8 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request
In the intro, please remove “in the crossroads of South and southeast Europe”, (no source) change southeast to Southeastern and make the S capitalized. 2600:100C:A21C:E44E:9CFD:64F3:D2BB:A3AA (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ M.Bitton (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Bosnia and Herzegovina Product Exports (2019).svg

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Evstafiev-sarajevo-building-burns.jpg
 * Parliament (6042784223).jpg

bosnia is a landlocked state
yes it is. 2404:8000:1027:85F6:DDB4:4A65:FBBE:29E0 (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Provide a reliable source WP:RS that states this Robynthehode (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No it’s not Bosnia has a 20 kilometer coastline Napalm Guy (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Religion
Now the Muslim population is 50% and another 50% All other groups because of the importance of Medjugorje! 5.43.98.99 (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"Босна" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0&redirect=no Босна] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 23:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)