User talk:Damir Mišić/Archive1

Hercegovina
Please clarify what you mean by "Hercegovina is looked upon as a natural part of the state of Bosnia." Really, it is a natural part of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Thewanderer 00:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Together, the historical regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina form the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this sense, the region of Herzegovina is not part of the region of Bosnia, since the country itself is called Bosnia and Herzegovina. (To bi bilo kao da kazes da je Dalmacija dio Slavoniju. Ja sam Hercegovac - trebao bi znat. :P) --Thewanderer 00:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Theories and voting

 * Damire, ne peglaj se s Ilirima. Postoje relevantni historijski izvori koji govore o Slavenima i nema potrebe praviti novu paradigmu, ako ne postoji konsenzus, ali nisam htio da te kontaktiram zbog toga. Pogledaj glasanje na ovoj strani: Srbofobia. Srbi kreiraju novi mit, i mislim da je potrebno da se ljudi izjasne za brisanje takve budalastine. Dosta je gluposti proizvedeno na Balkanu, svjedok sam svojim ocima, ali ovo je prevazislo sve granice. Mislim da ti ljudi nisu svjesni da kreiranjem jos jednog mita, koji je baziran na Seseljevim optuzbama o zavjeri Vatikana i Britanije protiv Srba, hrane nacionalisticko tijelo u Srbiji. Onda nije ni cudo sto Marakana skandira sasvim normalno rekao bih u porodicnoj atmosferi Noz, zica, Srebrenica. Pozdrav.--Emir Arven 07:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You can vote here:--Emir Arven 23:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings. I suggest that you read carefully the discussion and then vote. I placed neutral because I am generally against the deletion of articles; but as you probably saw, the article inclines Serbian nationalism (and perhaps, even propaganda). Vote as you will, my friend. HolyRomanEmperor 13:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ovdje da glasaš: Serbophobia HolyRomanEmperor 17:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Bosniaks
Sorry for reverting your edits on Bosniaks. I noticed that 85.108.1.34 had been going around and changing a bunch of pages' statistics to favor Turkey. Since the edit was so recent at Bosniaks I just assumed it was the top, so when I reverted I went to the one immediately before his. I didn't mean to revert your edits as well. Tbjablin 20:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Reason for reverting
The edit doesn't make sense, which is why it has been reverted. "but however not in a christian point of view" is particularly troubling.

It appears to be saying that "they were liars and weren't really Christians", in which case it would possibly violate the Neutral point of view policy. But it still doesn't make sense.

Morwen - Talk 20:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, perhaps you can rephrase the English so it actually makes sense.


 * Nontheless, if they claimed to be follows of Jesus Christ, we can't deny that, it would be violating NPOV to say they were false Christians. The distinction in the words, I don't know whether that's truly significant.  What's really important is what they believed, not what they were called.  People can judge for themselves.   Morwen - Talk 20:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't take the editorial position that you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian. In fact, it doesn't take any editorial positions.  You might find the Unitarianism article interesting.  We don't say they aren't Christians. Morwen - Talk 20:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, please. I'd not even heard of them before, and I have absolutely no interest in rewriting history. I just spotted some edits of yours, and am trying to explain to you the concept of Neutral point of view. It seems you reject this concept, which is a shame. Morwen - Talk 21:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think I ever said that we should claim they were Christians. If they considered themselves so, we should say "they considered themselves to be Christians but were considered heretical non-Christians by the authorities" and leave it at that.  NPOV means not taking either side.  Morwen - Talk 21:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok. Then I'll leave it to you to re-enact your independence war.  Luckily nobody is going to die this time.  Morwen - Talk 21:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that the term Bosanac was derived from the word Bosnjak about 100 years ago. However at that time meaning of term Bosnjak (Bosniak) was somewhat different from what term Bosnjak (Bosniak) has today. I think that articles Bosniaks and Bosnians are quite clear about that. For the sake of disambiguation of meanings I think that the article as it currently uses the term Bosnian is fine. The history section begins by stating the origin of the term and I will support you if you want to elaborate on the issue on name in that section. --Dado 00:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's clarify something. Regardless of the historical meaning of words in question.


 * Bosniaks are a constituent ethnic group of Bosnia and Herzegovina. As such they protect their rights through the Bosnian constitution. The term was introduced in 1993 to replace the term Muslims in order to protect rights of Muslims in the contemporary constitutional system of Bosnia and Herzegovina.


 * Bosnians is a common name for all ethnicities in BiH. Since it is believed that all ethnic groups in BiH portray a single cultural identity that can be described in terms of a single nation this name is used to differentiate the commonalities among ethnic groups in BiH from uniqueness of the Bosniaks.

Otherwise you are simply denying others the use of the term and in a some way their right to be identified with BiH as being Bosnian. --Dado 00:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Matej Ninoslav
Since you are so interested in Bosnia (and the Bogumils), check out the article that I expanded recently - Matej Ninoslav. HolyRomanEmperor 12:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why not. :) By the way, I didn't understand the first sentence on my talk page. Could you repeat in our native language to avoid further misunderstandings? HolyRomanEmperor 13:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Serbian state from the 1300th century
You mentioned the first definitions of a Serbian state from the 1300th century. Weren't you a bit too off then? HolyRomanEmperor 13:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Serbia acomplished unified statehood in 1168, it was a Kingdom since 1217, and an Empire since 1346, under feudal anarchy since the second half of the 14th century and a Despotate between 1402 and 1439; and after the temponary Ottoman conquest re-established between 1444 and 1459. But that is the Third age. The second age is 1034-1166 (notice that there are only few gaps between the two ages) when it was a Duchy up to the second half of the 11th century and a Kingdom up to 1166. The first age is that of Časlav Klonimirović who greated a grand Serb Principality between 927 and 960. The current, fourth age lasts from the uprisings against the Ottomans in the late 18th century and early 19th century to the present. There's a brief summery. Does this clarify? HolyRomanEmperor 13:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The pre-age lasts between the 7th century and up to the 9th century; the state gaining power over the southern Dalmatian Slavic Principalities, but losing numerious territories to the Croats to the west; and eventually hanging between the Bulgarians and Byzantines until getting finally melted-in by them and losing all the las western territories to Croatia. Almost one hundred years late, the mentioned Chaslav snatched the terrtories from the Bulgarians, Croats and fought the Hungarians until creating a united independent Realm, starting the First Age. The End

That's the short briefing of Serbia's history. HolyRomanEmperor 13:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Duklja
Since you have such a great interest in those fields; have a look at another article that I vastly re-wrote: Duklja (it somewhat contains Bosnia info as well). HolyRomanEmperor 16:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Mesa Selimovic
Damir, I am not familiar with that article and I have not participated in discussions on it. I believe EmirArven was more involved. I suggest you visit these links bellow for validity of claims before rushing into an inevidable edit war on that article

http://sr.wikiquote.org/wiki/Меша_Селимовић http://bs.wikiquote.org/wiki/Meša_Selimović

Best, --Dado 19:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is a first and only quote on a serbian Wikiquote site. If you know for fact that this not the case (and by fact I mean are there any sources that deny this quote) than you may have a case --Dado 14:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Rulers of Bosnia
Yes. But "control"? What do you mean? --HolyRomanEmperor 22:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ban (title)
Please refer to Talk:Ban (title) and comment my explaination about some 8 centuries of Croatian Bans. Hope to hear from you soon! --HolyRomanEmperor 22:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. HolyRomanEmperor 14:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Three revert rule
Regarding your blocks. I blocked you because you violated the three revert rule, as I have already told you. I do not know what has been going on at those article, only that someone called millosh, reported you at WP:AN/3RR. That is how I knew about your violations. You really should try to stay within the 3RR limits - revert warring never works. You are the only one who violated the rule on those articles (I checked). Izehar 23:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Bosnian demographics
Damir, I have reverted your last edit on Bosniaks in Turkey. The source that you provided has some serious credibility issues. For instance it lists Croats and Serbs as minority in BiH while it depicts Republika Srpska as part of Serbia. Please be more critical in your research. --Dado 04:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If a website promotes a garbage like this map I would be seriously doubtfull about it being correct on other issues especially when it has to do with numbers. Technically Serbs and Croats are a minority in BiH but officially they are also constituent people. A war was fought because of this and I doubt that pushing this will be accepted easily. Pick your battles.--Dado 14:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

New article
Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina --HolyRomanEmperor 01:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I know; I put the tag. :) Numerious questions have to be ressolved... HolyRomanEmperor 17:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Mesa
That "Bosniaks are content with the current situation" isn't exactly true. User:Emir Arven made some sort of compromise, even though I believe that some Serb vandals broke it pretty quickly. Mesa of course belongs to the Bosniak literary corpus, but I don't have the time or energy to get into another nationalistic edit war with people like Smolenski. Asim Led 00:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote
This may interest you Articles for deletion/Unitary Islamic Bosnia--Dado 07:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Damir, Bosnian in French is: Bosnien; in Spanish: Bosnio and in Italian --HolyRomanEmperor 16:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes; I know. I didn't mention Italian; only French and Spanish. :) Tell me please, one thing; were in Zadar during the war; and if you were, tell me how it was during 1991, please. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you ever hear about a certain "Crystal Night" in Zadar? --HolyRomanEmperor 21:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, have you, or have you not? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

?
Još nisam imao priliku srijesti Hrvata koji mrzi Hrvate. Zašto jednostavno ne kažeš da si Bošnjak, ako jesi (ili barem nemoj tvrditi da si Hrvat pred sviju)? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Možda ti žena mlogo previše utiče na tebe :D. Uzgred, ja sam Jugosloven. Što ne valja sa mojom verzijom Demographic history of Bosnia? Pogledaj talk page i vidi što ne valja s tvojom. Poz! --HolyRomanEmperor 21:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

False Friends of the Slavist
Please have a look at False Friends of the Slavist. With your language skills, you can help us very much there, though there is not too much to be done. See also wikibooks:Talk:False Friends of the Slavist for details on what is still needed. Thanks in advance! --Daniel Bunčić 18:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

False Friends of the Slavist
Please have a look at False Friends of the Slavist. With your language skills, you can help us very much there, though there is not too much to be done. See also wikibooks:Talk:False Friends of the Slavist for details on what is still needed. Thanks in advance! --Daniel Bunčić 18:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Bogumilstvo
Ne znam bas koliko tvoja tvrdnje drze vodu. Ti kazes da su Dobri Bosnjani bili zaseban narod, koji zivi oduvijek u Bosni - i to da su podanici Bosnanske Crkve - Bogumili.

Ali ima tu jedan veliki problem: Bogumili su dosli u Bosnu s Bugarima, i nije ih u velikim brojevima bilo prije protjeravanja Stefana Nemanje krajen XII vijeka. Dakle, to bi znacilo da Srbi i Hrvati nastanjuju Bosnu, a da su Bosnjani dosli iz Azije.

Zato ti ne savjetujem da promotujes to teoriju. Bog! --HolyRomanEmperor 20:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, not the ethnic Bulgarians, no. Bogumilism was deeply encroached in the Bulgarian people. Numerious Serbs were Bogumils too. Stefan Nemanja prosecuted the Bogumils by exiling their Headmaster (with his tongue taken out) and confiscating Bogumil property as well as declaring them as official heretics and not protected by the Law. He even burned some that were intent to stay foot in Serbia. The majority (including the tongue-less Headmaster) fled to Bosnia, where they founded the autocephalous - but unrecognized - Bosnian Church. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nemanja also destroyed Bogumilism in Zeta, after he annexed it. The majority of Bogumil adherents were refugees/immigrants from the Serbian Lands. This would mean that the entire origin of the proto-Bogumil (Bosniak, as you say) religion was Serb. If I didn't know better, I would say that you're spreading Serbian propaganda. :D


 * Note also the explaination why Nemanja didn't go for Bosnia during his reunification plans of the Serbian Lands: He said that Bogumils will always be present, and fighting them would be impossible, so the best thing to do - is to keep them at a distance - centered in Bosnia. Therefore, he oblieged himself to protect Bosnia and its Bogumil populace - which in turn again became a 400 years of friendhsip and full territorial allience (like under Tvrtko) agains the Hungarians, Croats, Bulgarians, Byzantines and ofcourse, the Turks. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And essentially, calling Croats Catholic Bosniaks and Serbs Orthodox Bosniaks would be correct - only if used in the anachronistic form (citizen of Bosnia). If used in the modern meaning of the word, it's noe better than the claim that Bosniaks are converted Moslem Serbs, I'm afraid.


 * And finally, if you call Bosniaks slavic-speaking Illyrians - so must you call Serbs and Croats that way.


 * Hope to hear soon from you. Regards. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Accusations
Pro Serb-nationalistic? A) that's a personal attack and B) I'm not Serbian so I have no reason to be. If I disagree with you, it does not mean I hate your ethnic group (Bosniaks or Croats as the case may be) and support those who oppose you (usually Serbs). In fact, I have been at odds with Serb users in the past, so I think I should not be judged on the few encounters you have had with me. If you have a specific complaint, let me know. --Latinus 23:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? According to the article Bosnians: Rest assured though, that I have no Serb agenda. --Latinus 00:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean like Macedonians? OK - I get the picture... --Latinus 00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion would be appriciated here relative to Serbophobia article--Dado 23:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Bosnians ≠ Bosniaks.
Damir, your POV that Bosniaks ≡ Bosnian people is not acceptable. Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats are as much Bosnian people as Bosniaks. They all even waged a war about it. So is not acceptable your approach that "I may insert whatever I want about Serbs". No, I can't if it's not factually true. And we don't divide the articles here on "yours" and "ours". For the start, if the terms were synonymous, we wouldn't have two articles.

Unfortunately, I cannot assume good faith on your part anymore, as your repeat your attack tactics on several selected articles – all you do is to change the very introduction paragraphs, agreed by many editors long time ago, to concur with your point of view. I am sorry that you are apparently unable to accept existence of other viewpoints, quite different from yours and quite more widely accepted, and to realize that your PoV is an extreme one. I may file a WP:RfC soon. Duja 20:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:
Bosniaks resemble Albanians in behaviour? But that is ridicilous. You cannot compare whole nations by behavour. As for appearence, there is no possibility that any nation other than Serbs and Croats is more similiar to Bosniaks. From what did you draw that thesis in the first place?

Only Albanians and Bosnians converted to Islam? But what about Bulgarians, Serbs, Croats, Greeks and other peoples that the Ottoman Empire consumed? The present situation is merely because these Muslims of BiH and Albanian Muslims are the only ones that survived the withdrawal of the Ottoman Empire. This was raised by an influx of Moslem migrants/refugees from lost Ottoman territories; so eventually, only Albanians really kept Islam. Some regions in Bosnia and Sanjak kept too.

How do you know that Bosniaks are Illyrian descendents? And just look at the ethnic map of BiH. You have Bosniaks (Illyrians) in the center, then Serbs and Croats (non-Ilyrians) to the west and then Bosniaks (Illyrians) again further to the west. Common logic says that Serbs and Croats are Illyrians descendents just as so. No?

Regards. I will await your reply. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Duja
I've known both of you, and both of you are dear to me; so I cannot stand your foolosh arguements. The last warning that Duja posted was on 20 March, so it was long ago. If he warns you again, then note me.


 * Allthe best! --HolyRomanEmperor 10:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved my reply and your "reply" to Talk:Bosniaks. I warn you once more to refrain from personal attacks and insults, like in this edit summary. At least be civil. Duja 21:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Katarina
Ovo mi je stvarno cudno - mozes li mi objasniti zasto si je smatrao Bosnjankom? --HolyRomanEmperor 10:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ofcourse not! I cannot get insulted! ;) --HolyRomanEmperor 08:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Bosnians to include Serbs and Croats
You must have swallowed something, because I do not even nearly understand your, rather strange, point of view on the bosnians article. Croats and serbs haven't, first off, lived in bosnia since year 600 (whoever told you this was wrong). There is not a single "trace" or "evidence" of croatian or serbianhood in bosnia before the 10th century. Before serbs and croats entered bosnia, perhaps you've forgotten, other native peoples lived there - the rest is up to you to figure out, here's one clue; bosniaks/bosnians. Serbs and croats have their ethnicity which is either serbian or croatian, it is impossible to have two ethnicities unless you have parents which are both from croatia/serbia and bosnia. But to say that the whole serbian/croatian people are "ethnic bosnians" that would be like saying that whole croatia or serbia have "double ethnicities" and that every serb/croat has both croatian/serbian and bosnian/bosniak parents. What you are saying is that croats = bosniaks = ethnic bosnians = serbs = which means that croats, serbs and bosniaks are one people. Welcome to the future: they are not. Until the croats and serbs of bosnia prefer calling themselves by the name of bosnians instead of serbs/croats they are not bosnians - when they say bosnian they mean this geographicly; bosniaks don't, for bosniaks it means bosnian blood, genes and heritage and not only geography. A reminder for you, why is Siroki football club in bosnia called "croatian football club" and not Bosnian club. Because croats are ethnic bosnians?. Don't deny the croatian or serbian nationhood, this is wrong and I don't know what your purpose is; perhaps to "proove" that serbs and croats actually are nothing but bosnians?. Damir Mišić

Firstly let me tell you something about the "province" of bosnia.and it might shock you, but get ready Dalmatia (and Pannonia)actually before the croats arrived during the roman times was actually much larger then it is today and it including parts( most) of "Present day BiH" evidence: In roman times, duvno (delminium)todays (tomislavgrad) was capital of dalmatia, and where is duvno today??, in BiH.

so for people like you who belive the AVNOJ BORDERS AND take them as where each of the slavic tribes solely settled ...then it shows how neive you are.

the borders of each of the FYR's are artificail just for your infomation...do you honestly believe the croat tribes settled in a crescent( the modern border of croatia), and skiped over neum and settled in konavlje?? If you do then the people in dubrovinik are croats while the people who live in neum are actually socalled"Bosnians"( even though they are from Herzegovina) by your way of thinking?

Your idea of bosna is messed cozz the modern notion of Bosna (od une do drine, od save do mora) is a recent phenomenon, as previously it was not such a distinguisable unified mass rather there was turkish Croata and turkish dalmatia (hercegovina) etc., the real bosna is the area east of jajce and north of konjice.

here is the growth of the real bosnia when in the 11th century

early Bosnia (which covered no more than 20% of contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina, mainly around Sarajevo- then called Vrhbosna)

It is Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks, whose major obsession is to enlarge the territory of medieval Bosnian political unit in order to give historical legitimacy to current national/political aspirations that is.. to Preserve a greater BiH and claim all the present day inhabitants of the land are "bosnians( catholics muslims orthodox" in an ethnic sense

Bosnia was made up of historical provinces (Soli, Usora, Uskoplje, Vrhbosna, Brotnjo, Klis, Rama, Bekija, Popovo, Podrinje etc) .Your talk regarding there is not one shred of evidence that croats arrived in the balkans in the 600s, is pathetic when it is almost a world accepted fact that they did. Yet you belive a more ridiculous claim where you allude to the original inhabitants prior to the slavs arriving to the balklans to be BOsniaks hahaha hello my friend, it was illyrians andd romans that were living in the then called provinces of Illyria dalmatia and pannonia, which was then on present day bosnia. Or are you trying to say that bosniaks are the decendants of illyrians and are not slavic and are are totaly different people to croats... thats quite funny considering that the albanians have already taken that title, and which brings me to my next question that if there ever was some bosniaks people, which i remind you bosnia in those times was 20% of todays BiH, explain as to why bosniaks and croats are indistinguishable. Woudnt bosniaks look more mediteraenean? so let me explain something to you...if you do not belive that bosniaks are product of islamified croats( or slavs) during 500 years of seperation from the mother countries historical lands, and you cannot prove there was a bosniak nation before the slavs arrival can you explain to me when there national emancipation occured?? and why they didnt revolt to croatian rule during the 900s? or why there is not one recorded manuscript of the bosniak before the slavs arived?

so i suggest you leave the article to be NPOV instead of BPOV, and if you want to keep it that way then it is only fair that the SPOV and CPOV is shown aswell..let me remind you that the serbs and croats could be more aggresive in changing the makeup of this article..howver its up to the reader to decide what is true and what they will accept as fact and not you damir..so leave the article as it was ,as it shows the reality of croat and serb opinion.and you cannot hide that.

Anyways croats who have been living in the regions of Hum and Bosanska krajina (Turkish Croatia) ( as the moajority of these inhabitants are muslim refugees from the military frontier in croatia following the austro hungarian retake of there land in the 17th century) since their arrival to the balkans... The AVNOJ borders do no reflect where the serbs are croats settled... and thus croats and serbs..who also mixed with the indigenous illyrian and roman population( not BOsniak as you claim) are just as ethnic to bosnia( i Hercegovina) as bosniaks are. --Jadran 07:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

that was far from a compromise damir and you know it, the tab regarding the reality of croat and serb view to the adjective bosnian must be included as they are 2 of the 3 contituent peoples of BiH and thus they view regarding the issue is just as important and they have every right to express it. You've proven that you want the adjective Bosnian to be assocaited with Muslims, and that bosniaks are the heirs to everything cultural and historic to BiH. You continualinsistence on ethnic bosnians to be exclusibly bosniaks is a testiment to it and as wikipedia is NPOV, it is only fair to present the other 2 EQUAL Constituent people of BiH( expressed through both ZAVNO-BIH, and DAYTON constitution. 	 So therefore Serb and Croat opinion regarding the adjective bosnian and what it means to them must be expressed and NOT hidden or silenced. It is up to the read to decide the truth, not you.

Please just leave it, the article is still highly pro bosniak, but im willing to leave it. It is not propaganda but a reality.--Jadran 13:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

DAMIR MISIC VANDALISM
Why take out my comments from your user page, are you embarressed that you cannot reply, or you dont want anyone to see your hypocrisy, wel if your gonna hide my comments i guess its gonna go in the bosnia disccsuion for the whole world to see?? its fine by me So how bout if you gonna edit the bosnia article you explain your reason for doing so.

QUOTE OF THE DAY
This is gold damir, and if your gonna post such garbage as this and think you have the right to edit the bosnians article on those grounds of thinking, i think all wikipedian users have the right to know the reason for your actions in the bosnians article, so atleast they can be somewhat prepared

well anyways here it is--Jadran 06:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"Yes my good man, Bosniaks are the slavicized descendants of Illyrians. Only bosniaks and albanians accepted Islam in large scale, "Bosnia" stems from illyrian "Bosona" (meaning running water) and bosniaks are much more similiar to albanians than to serbs or croats. Yes bosnian serbs and bosnian croats look exactly as Bosniaks, more than albanians do, but this is because bosnian serbs and bosnian croats are simply Catholic Bosniaks and Orthodox Bosniaks. Even the real croats,from croatia, consider the bosnian croats to actually be only Catholic Bosnians and not Croats. Allthoug the croat government is lying about this because they want to claim Bosnian lands. Remember Bosnian croats were Bosniaks as late as in the 19th century when they suddenly changed ethnicity to croats because of religion." Damir Mišić 22:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

So Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs look like Bosnian Bosniaks because they are actually all bosniaks, am i correct.

So can you explain to me as to why Croats from the Republic of Croatia( i.e SLavonija Dalmatia, Istra, etc) look exactly the same as bosniaks?

Or in your opinion they dont.

I personally belive that albanians do not look anthing like Bosniaks. But anyways, According to your train of thought, there must be a huge difference in the croats from peljesac penisula and konavlje ( the region around dubrovnik) and the "Bosniak" Catholics of Neum

haha, you are so naive The borders of the FYR are ARTIFICAL. Do you understand that AVNOJ borders are artifical! Croats when they settled in the balkans did not settle in a Crescent Shape.

"Even the real croats,from croatia, consider the bosnian croats to actually be only Catholic Bosnians and not Croats.Damir Mišić"

really?? wow, i am curios to where you have heard this FACT?

""Bosnia" stems from illyrian "Bosona"Damir Mišić" ''' Exactly and Historical bosnia is not the modern notion of Bosna (od une do drine, od save do mora)

early Bosnia covered no more than 20% of contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina, mainly around Sarajevo- then called Vrhbosna.'''

So stop with your manipulation and monopolization of History and the use of the geographic term Bosanac to claim that THE CROATS AND SERBS PRESENT WITHIN THE MODERN DAY AVNOJ BORDERS OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA to BE CATHOLIC AND ORTHODOX BOSNIAKS

ur a joke

YOuve proved it by claiming to be the heirs to the illyrians...well guess what your not illyrian, because only the albanians are, and bosniaks do not look like albanians, and bosniaks do not look any different from the Croats of the Republic of Croatia or the Serbs of SErbia Montenegro --Jadran 06:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please Jadran let us at least keep a cultural level to the discussion, "ur a joke" - refrain from these attacks thank you. What I wonder, Jadran, is, if you're a "Bosnian Croat" what is the problem then?, as I explained to you earlier you are actually a catholic Bosniak in that case. To me it's funny how a catholic Bosniak want's bosnia, his own country, to dissapear. You are a Bosniak, if you are a so-called "bosnian "croat"". And yes there are theories claiming Bosniaks to be descendants of Illyrians, but however not Albanians; allthough these two peoples, bosniaks and albanians, in that case would be closely related. Damir Mišić

are you going to explain to us as to how you have come up with this belief that croats and serbs of BiH are actually bosniak christians? and are you going to answer any of the questions i have asked you.--Jadran 02:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Bosniaks
This is getting ridiculous. Why did I make that last revert? Because "Bosnians" and "Bosniaks" are two different things. One is a name for a geographic identity, and the other an ethnic one. Its a very basic difference that you keep skewing to fit with your own personal opinion. If you respect Bosniak culture then there are other more positive ways you can work with that on wikipedia.. instead of engaging in edit wars with different users on Bosniaks you could, for instance, protect Srebrenica massacre from vandalism. Live Forever 22:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Herzeg-Bosnia
I don't think you understand the issue at hand. The name "Herceg-Bosna" is not a nationalist Croatian invention of the 1990s. The name existed for as long as the name "Bosnia and Herzegovina" has and was used by all ethnic groups, although it may have been more popular among the Croats.

Herzeg-Bosnia is just a shortened form of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this sense, it covers all of the country. However, we now understand Herzeg-Bosnia to also refer to the short-lived Croat state that this article is about, and in that sense it would only be a small region in the southwest of BiH.

Because your intro referred to Herzeg-Bosnia sans Croatia Community/Republic, it was referring to its much older connotation. --Thewanderer 01:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, whats up? I have seen that some people are destroying Bosnian related articles, spreading propaganda...But they dont have valid sources for that...--Emir Arven 23:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Damir,
I know that some Bosniaks/Muslims believe that Serbs and Croats are/were Orthodox and Catholic Bosniaks - but the Croatian and Serbian peoples have existed since in these areas by their names since the first half of the 7th century. How do you explain that? --HolyRomanEmperor 10:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is how he will explain it: he will use manipulation and monopolization of the geographic term Bosanac to claim that THE CROATS AND SERBS PRESENT WITHIN THE MODERN DAY AVNOJ BORDERS OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA to BE CATHOLIC AND ORTHODOX BOSNIAKS. even though early bosnia was only 20% of modern bosnia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rastbosne.png --Jadran 02:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ban (title)
Pa čekaj malo, Damire, nadam si da si primetio da su ljudi u međuvremenu napravili mnogo izmena na tom članku. Zaista ne razumem zašto moraš da obrišeš sve njihove izmene samo da bi izmenio deo članka sa kojim se ne slažeš. Dakle, ako pitaš kako da promeniš članak a da sačuvaš izmene drugih korisnika, veoma jednostavno: edituj sadašnju verziju članka i u njoj obriši samo deo u vezi porekla titule ban (sa kojim se ne slažeš) i na njeno mesto kopiraj tekst iz ranije verzije koju si ti pisao. Članak je kratak i sigurno ti neće trebati godine da to uradiš, već samo nekoliko minuta. PANONIAN  (talk)  22:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Bosnians
But, the borders of BiH are only recently forged. I don't think that you can claim such a thing when the borders aren't ethnical nor historical - the Serbs in Bosnian Krajina are the same like the Serbs in Croatia, while the Serbs in the east of Bosnia and Herzegovina are the same like the Serbs in Serbia - it's far too relative. Additionally, a large (maybe most) number of Serbs originates from Herzegovina (as you know, most Serbs originate from Montenegro and Herzegovina). Also, in the Middle Ages, the population of the Hum (Herzegovina) was traditionally Serbian.

License tagging for Image:Miljacka river.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Miljacka river.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 12:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hej...
Ja sam skoro sve probleme oko slika (Sarajevo) sredijo. Molim Vas da pogledate informaciju oko ostalih slika.

Hvala, Pozdrav Kseferovic 03:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Sarajevo_night.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sarajevo_night.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Make money.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Make money.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 22:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)