Talk:Bosnian Crisis

message: It aheadss that from the start, as I stumbled upon by googling the title, this page was lifted from a paper by a (Mount Holyoke) professor of PolySci.  Despite the many minor changes by subsequent editors, it's essentially still that guy's work.  So what happens?  Do we just dl the whole thing? Sfahey 05:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article in question and various similar articles hosted there look like entries from a government publication from 1918.  (Notice the oddly dated bit about how "complete information is not yet available" on the Serbia's capitulation.)  That would make it public domain.  It is somewhat bizarre - an article on the Bosnian Crisis that doesn't mention the secret negotiations between Russia and Austria-Hungary misses the point. Chris Johnson 03:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: Since this article was initially plagerized and since it is unfootnoted and based on out-of-date materials, I propose replacing it with the draft below.  I ask for your comments.Werchovsky (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace Article 

message: I think the Buchlau Bargain deserves its own article. Any thoughts? Eguygabe 03:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The Buchlau Bargain

message: "Advance of civilization in Bosnia and Herzegovina" I think the French text is even more funny: it means, "civilisation is marching on", i.e. it plays on three meanings of the expression "est en marche", the first and main of which being the military meaning, the second being the association with walking (obviously in jackboots), and only the third being the meaning of advancement. Is there a way to translate better this play on words in English? In French, it is really funny (though I am not a French). In English, I suppose, it's somewhat academical. Suggestions? - 89.110.18.166 (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The caricature 

message: The opening is actually a background. An opening is still needed, and the currently opening needs to be named background. --MorenaReka (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening 

message: Why there is not a single word about Croatian intellectuals who sought to unite Bosnia with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.236.228 (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croatia 

message: The article says the annexation of Bosnia took place on 8 October, but there is no citation for that date. Searching Google Books, I found several conflicting dates.
* The Failure to Prevent World War I: The Unexpected Armageddon (2016) says 6 October.
* British Foreign Policy Under Sir Edward Grey (1977) says 6 October.
* Armaments and the Coming of War: Europe, 1904-1914 (1996) says 5 October
* For Peace and Money: French and British Finance in the Service of ... (2014) says 6 October
* The art of the possible: documents on great power diplomacy, 1814-1914 (1996) says 4 October
* The Origins of the First World War: Controversies and Consensus (2013) says 5 October
* A Companion to Europe, 1900 - 1945 (2011) says 5 October
So given that we can't seem to find any consistency here and absent a primary source, I think the best course of action is to remove the exact date and put in a footnote to show that the date varies among sources. —howcheng  {chat} 17:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annexation date 

message: Wasn't the war from 1992-95 a crisis also? 
24.154.199.193 (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Bosnian Crisis 

message: do Russia, Hungary etc really still hold a grudge about this today? 92.21.10.29 (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The states of Russia and Hungary are very different today - the article refers to the time. Both named countries have gone through several changes of government since 1908.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.55.190 (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "permanently" damaged relations