Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina/Archive 1

message: Evreybody knows that Muslims refers to religion. How can "muslim" be a nationality? Is there a nation called "catholics"?
The concept of muslim nationality was invented by Tito during the Yugoslavian times and isn't older than 55 years. 
It was invented in order to weaken the Slavic nationalities especially the Croat one in order to strengthen the new Yugoslav state.
Of course also a Croat and a Serb can be a muslim, just as a Croat can be an orthodox and a Serb a catholic. 
Also the word Bosniak refers simply to a region and not to a nation. A Serb can be a Bosniak just as much as a Croat or a so called "Muslim" can be a Bosniak.
The fact is that the so called "Muslims" of today are formely Croats and Serbs who were muslimised often by the use of force and threat of punishment during the Ottoman times.
And due to the vast amount of money by states like Saudi Arabia and the interests of some other European states the "Muslim-concept" is reinforced today. That is why many "Muslims" today declare themselves as such.
:"muslimised often by the use of force and threat of punishment during the Ottoman times." Is this the reason you have non-Muslim Croats, Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks today even though they lived under the Ottoman rule for hundreds of years?! Please be objective a little bit. I am sure there were cases of  "use of force" but overall the Ottomans practiced an unparalleled tolerance towards its non-Muslim subjects. While Jews and Muslims were being expelled from Christian Spain, or members of certain Christian denominations -such as Huguenots- were persecuted by the Church, the Ottomans in general embraced religious plurality. Therefore, this "use of force" argument is a fallacy and wishful thinking. 71.103.1.201 (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslims a nation?

message: There is a continuity with the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (March 1 1992-December 15 1995). However, officially the Republic doesn't exist, and ought to be given its own historical entry. This is contained in the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (set out in Annex 4 of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina): 
liable sources on this planet.  I mean come on, it's a spy organization =).  
In addition, I hear "republicka bosna i hercegovina" every single time before the country's name is cited on Bosnian news. Mehicdino 22:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope your are able to read. And the further discussion about this seems futile. 
The CIA factbook says the following:
conventional long form: none conventional short form: 'Bosnia and Herzegovina' local long form: none local short form: Bosna i Hercegovina former: People's Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
So I don't see a reason for your constant reverts to information that is wrong. You can call it an "emerging federal emocratic republic", but its federalization is being strongly opposed to by the Bosniak politicians (federal Bosnia is the agenda of Milorad Dodik, the RS prime minister). This is why I opted for the neutral variant of "parliamentary democracy", while people can go to Political divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina to go into further detail on the political system. In essence, I have nothing against calling it a republic as a description of its political system, I have a problem with "emerging federal", because it means nothing -- to emerge is such a vague term, that I don't think it's suitable for an encyclopedic entry, while "federal" is just not true (yet).
--OgiDog
Also, in Bosnian, Serbian or Croatian it is "republika". "Republicka" is an adjective. You didn't seem to have been listening carefully to the news. 
Please stop vandalizing the pages for once!!!
Ogidog, please educate yourself more in what you say as I won't even begin to counter your complete fantasy entry there such as saying that the Bosniak politicians of the country are opposing a democratic Bosnia and Herzegovina, as they are doing just the opposite of what you say.  Also, parliamentary democracy is fine as the government type of this country on Wikipedia, as "emerging federal democratic republic" is just even more specific then "parliamentary democracy".  And finally, whoever made the dumb claim that "republicka" is an adjective you too educate yourself.  I speak Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian and if I say "Ova zemlja je republicka" that would mean "This country is a republic".  Mehicdino 23:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Name of Bosnia and Herzegovina

message: sh: Republika Srpska (RS) = en: The Republic of Serbland = de: Republik Serbland
one-word name:
sh: Srpska = en, de: Serbland 
(Srpski jezički priručnik, Beograd 2004)
some info here:
http://www.rastko.org.yu/filologija/bbrboric-jezik/bbrboric-jezik5.html
There were attempts to coin words before. This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. I'm cracking up from these idle ludicrous suggestions. RS is actually untranslatable -- the international policy is to use "Republika Srpska", not the Republic of Srpska. As it is in modern Serbo-Croat, in English too, the correct term is actually Republika Srpska, in it's Serbo-Croat form, this in part is because RS is not a Republic, it's an entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina (which is not a "state" either, which makes the matter even funnier, a non-republic called republic inside a state which is only referred to as the state in the official name of its border service and nowhere else! -- welcome to Bosnia and Herzegovina!!!).  Ogidog --24.2.242.93 06:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-word name of Republic of Srpska

message: It was shown by the Croat historian I. Goldstein that Tomoslav and Kresimir IV never ruled Bosnia (Hrvatski rani srednji vijek, p. 286-291) For that matter, the Croat historian N. Klaic pointed out that their rule never extended beyond the river Una (N. Klaic, Prilog IX).
:My, my, my....they would like to do some history revisionism & they cant even spell the names properly. OK, time for reality check:
*Ivo Goldstein is not generally accepted as *the* authority on Croatian medieval period. His book on Croatian medieval history, «Hrvatski rani srednji vijek» is still a textbook on Croatian medievalistics only due to the fact that he taught the subject for some time (he is now teaching Croatian contemporary history- and his position is precarious since his credentials are weak: he was appointed to the chair mostly due to machinations of political cliques of pro-Yugoslav & Communist affiliation still dominant in parts of Croatian academic life). Nevertheless, his stature as authority in Croatian medieval history is not very strong: the dominant tone is set by academicians Tomislav Raukar and Radoslav Katičić, as well as younger historians like Mladen Ančić, Milko Brković etc. But, let's see Goldstein's work for a while: on page 286. Goldstein dismissed the reports of Tomislav's reign in Bosnia- without a slightest argument. He enumerated a few sources that claimed Tomislav had ruled in Bosnia and simply stated he didn't believe them. That's not a «proof» of anything, but an ex-cathedra pronouncement with no basis whatsoever. Another thing is his «contribution» on the page 308. There he quotes LJPD/Chronicle of the priest of Dioclea: «Krešimir zauze čitavu Bosnu i zavlada njom»/Krešimir conquered all of Bosnia and ruled it. Goldstein, this time, did not dismiss the report- but has hastened to add that Krešimir's rule had been-it must had been- short. These passages (and much, much more) show that Ivo Goldstein is not a serious historian: he's got political agenda (mostly in denigrating Croatian heritage) and his works in history have not achieved the status of respectable academic books. For a review in Croatian, this is a recap:http://www.hic.hr/dom/393/dom10.htm 
*much more serious is academician Tomislav Raukar (http://www.hazu.hr/Akademici/TRaukar.html), whose «Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje», 1998, is considered a landmark in Croatian medievalistics. For a review on the site of the Sarajevo Instite of history, see:http://www.iis.unsa.ba/prilozi/30/30_prikazi_hrvatsko.htm 
*On pages 116-129 the growth of Croatian medieval state is chartered. Page 118 is on Tomislav's state, and the eastern border is, roughly, on the river Bosna-river Neretva line. True, the core Bosnia (the contemporary Sarajevo region) lies outside it- but it doesn't matter, since this area was virtually depopulated. As regards contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina, Tomislav ruled over ca. 65% of its territory. The next page shows further expansion which even crossed the Drina river and incorporated Bosnia proper (Sarajevo and Tuzla regions), while Krešimir's rule is supposed to be again on the Bosna-Neretva line, just a bit more eastwards. The author has acknowledged that there were no methods to ascertain the exact position of eastern Croatian border.
*moreover- Serbian historian Relja Novaković has «given» Croats even more territory in Bosnia: 
*«..U prvoj polovini X veka do 30ih godina, politička granica Hrvatske prema istoku dopirala je po svoj prilici do planinskog venca koji čine planine Zelengora, Lelija, Treskavica, Jahorina, Romanija, Ozren i Zvijezda.»/In the first half of the 10th century, until the 30ies, Croatian political border to the east was, probably, the mountainous wreath composed of the mountains Zelengora, Lelija, Treskavica, Jahorina, Romanija, Ozren and Zvijezda». 
*Relja Novaković: O nekim pitanjima granica Srbije, Hrvatske i Bosne u X veku, Zbornik Fil.fak. u Beogradu, VII/1, 1963, str. 178/On some questions regarding the Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia borders in the 10th century, Philosophical faculty in Belgrade, 1963.
*Well- this is ca. 80-90% of contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina. *So, let's recapitulate:
*the most authoritative texts on Croatian medieval history (Tomislav Raukar, Mladen Ančić,..) put Croatian rule in Bosnia in the 10th century to covering to not less than 60-70% of contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina, and probably more
*Goldstein is not the authority, while his mentor Nada Klaić is superseded by more contemporary scholarship (also, her «borders credibility» is not very strong- she also claimed, until her death, that Croats arrived to Croatia from Carantania/Slovenia- a quirky idea dismissed by virtually everyone)
*some other historians (Croatian Antoljak, Serbian Novaković etc.) consider that Croatian borders in the 10th century covered more than 80-90% of the current BiH.
*So, it's somewhere between 65% and 85% of B & H. I guess it's more than enough for a revert. And, as far as historical sources are concerned- this is also more than enough:Talk:History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Coup_de_grace Mir Harven 19:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tomoslav and Kresimir IV -Joy edits 

message: The history section is way to long. Please merge most of it to History of Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Jiang 21:39, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. User:Efghij did that now. Cheers, Efghij! --Shallot 01:30, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Is the name Bosnia Herzegovina made up two provinces viz. Bosnia and Herzegovina like Czechoslovakia was? Or is it a single word. Nichalp 19:53, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
: There are two regions, one called "Bosnia" the other "Herzegovina", but the border between them is not fixed, for most practical purposes they are indistinct from each other. --Shallot 20:19, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  A region of the country is identified as "Herzegovina", but borders do not exist.  In fact, the only reason the title of the country is Bosnia and Herzegovina and not just Bosnia is because the citiziens of historical and cultural Herzegovina want to be known.  Congressional politicans ruled in favor of adding "Herzegovina" to the title of the country.  User:Burning Exile 08:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  name 

message: Nikola, what evidence do you have to not include the not-too-religious people of Bosnian Muslim extraction among the Yugoslavs?
: It's hard to proove a negative thing. I haven't found any useful reference when googling for "bosniaks yugoslavs" (also in native language). Nikola
I can certainly see how they could comprise at least a minor part of the Yugoslav demographic (which is why they're added last in that list, after mixed marriage people and hardcore patriots). For someone whose parents were Serbs or Croats, they could register as their nationality without the implication that they're Orthodox or Catholic, but the people born to a couple of "Muslims by nationality" simply couldn't.
: They have surely comprised a part, but then so did everyone else. I don't see why would registering as a "Muslim by nationality" implicate someone's religion. In Serbia, it is often suggested that most Yugoslavs were Serbs, being the most devout to the Yugoslav idea. Nikola
:: Um, AFAIK it wasn't actually literally "Muslim by nationality" in Yugoslav censa, one just registered as "Musliman" when asked about nationality. This is a clear implication in my book. Serbia (and any other republic, really) is not too comparable, they have a different, much more homogenous and long-nationally-established primary demographic. --Joy [shallot]
::: About censa, you're probably right. However, as these are only claims, if Bosniak claims should be mentioned, Serbian should also (which don't refer only to Serbia but elsewhere and even to diaspora). Nikola
:::: It's possible. We should probably move this whole thing into its own page (it doesn't exist now) and expand it a bit, it's not quite on topic as a footnote in this article. --Joy [shallot]
::::: Done that now. --Joy [shallot]
Furthermore, the later census result is also indicative -- the percentage of Bosniaks is noticably larger, despite the negative factors like wartime emigration. --Joy [shallot] 00:27, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, like others haven't wartime "emigrated". Nikola 01:25, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course they did, but it stands to reason that the largest group emigrated the most, and also the one that was quite endangered — for many months in the war, the Bosniaks were completely surrounded both by hostile forces of the Serbs and of the Croats, they sure didn't have it easy (whereas most areas held by the other two nations at least had a link to the two nearby countries). --Joy [shallot] 21:44, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  But that would only make fleeing easier for them! It would be interesting to see some numbers (assuming that there are some). Nikola 07:56, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's true, and indeed I know a lot of Croats did that (moved from Bosnia to Croatia during the war and never went back), but I still think that updated western European censa will show a greater increase in the number of Bosnian Muslim immigrants than other ethnicities. --Joy [shallot] 11:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Islamic Bosniaks registering among Yugoslavs 

message: The page Bosnia redirects to Bosnia and Herzegovina for two main reasons, I think:
* often when the term "Bosnia" is used in modern context, the writer means .ba
* the region doesn't have a non-stub page and is generally intrinsically linked with .ba
This, however, doesn't mean that Bosnia can't one day become a page of its own, so this redirect should be disambiguated/avoided with care. --Joy [shallot] 21:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bosnia" redirect 

message: The "language spoken in .ba" should be changed from "Serbian" to "Bosnian, Serbian, Croat".
BalkanSabranje
: This edit by User:Gzornenplatz omitted the two other languages. It picked up a temporarily vandalized version of the content from Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina infobox, and nobody noticed it because everyone thought they were just reverting each other.
: To Gzornenplatz and Cantus: these changes are no longer simply an idiotic waste of your own time and effort, they're harmful to these innocent bystander pages, mkay? --Joy [shallot] 18:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language spoken in .ba 

message: I have heard it referred to as "Hercegovina" Revolución 02:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. And? We acknowledge it in the intro, and on its page. --Joy [shallot] 09:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant the title of the article itself. Revolución 01:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Herzegovina is most common in English. Hercegovina is in Bosnian and Croatian.  The title is fine--Dado 02:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Revolución 04:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herzegovina or Hercegovina? 

message: According to the census of 22 April 1895, there were 35% of Muslims, 43% of Serbs and 21.3% of Croats. Over the time, that demographic picture was changed.
Who added this sentance?  
Bosnia and Herzegovina themselves are historical-geographic regions which today have no political status.
It is rediculous and ambigious as stating that any other country in the world is a historical and geographic region and because of that they don't have political status.  Bosnia and Herzegovina respectively achieve their political status through Bosnian Herzegovinian political institutions.  They are geographic regions and that can be explained in the secion on geography.--Dado 18:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone have any exact figures about any Albanian minority in BiH? Leshkuq 00:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographic  

message: I noticed that the para re: the 1st Armored Division was removed.  I re-added and removed the book link, since I assumed that was part of the reason for removing it.  Were there other reasons?  Thanks. -- Dave C.talk | Esperanza 14:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add it somewhere where it's appropriate. It simply does not belong to the summary of the country's history. History of Bosnia and Herzegovina would be a good start. This looks like something for the IFOR article. --Joy [shallot] 08:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 1st Armored Division

message: Can anyone figure out why is the Coat of Arms so disproportionaly bigger than a flag.  I've been trying to control its size but it does not seam to respond properly.  Help.  --Dado 22:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I adressed the problem, although it now takes a ridiculously long amount of time to load. Live Forever 23:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CoA issue 

message: Dear Serbs and Croats,
It is an strange event to have an encyclopedia written by "anyone" who wants.
It is also strange to have history that does not comply in its esence with anything written so far. There is some admin Maru who relate himself with Catolic Church in this way or the other. It would not be bad to look at encyclopedia catolica for that gentlmen and realize the notorious lies on the page on History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, plus to ralize the idiotizam in people who say that they speak Bosniak but understand Croatian and partiali understand Serbian when difference between this so called lanuages is similar to difference in English spoken in London against the one in New York and the one in Livrerpool. However he blocked my abalility to just take a text from any outstanding world resource and correct this PROPAGANDA presented as a history. 
It is the moment when people and ceratin nations after period of genocides and devastations should live with a "new world order" where history can be changed, when propaganda is superponing the facts and CNN the thousends of years of civilization in Europe. It is a time when I can be foreigner in a land of my grandfathers, my name changed, my roots, even my future, and this autorized by internet autority like he is.
It is a time when after 500 years of rule of Ottoman empire with so many genocides, persecutions, sufferings and killing of all people on the Balkan we need to live as a foreigners in our on land being classified as bosnians, having a "governor" with absolute power who came to change our names and our past and to shape our future-dezaster. To put us in a rezervoats of the past, or Bosnian Sandzak. The man who is "supposed" to "invent" a new nations, like Europe is no man land which is inhabitted by bunch of someones that need to be indentified 
There is bunch of books of historians throughout a Europe and USA. There is clear agreemnet among them, among the facts of the past that Bosnia and Herzegovina was a land inhabitted by same substance that today makes Serbian and Croation people, that there is the thin line between them too. There is not better proof but the language spoken. Howere against any common sense it is this, so called ecyclopedia, where new languages will be invented and new nations established. It will be here where Croations and Serbs will be erased from the past of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where what Ottomans started will be continued.
And it will be here where we will be put in arena to fight to prove obvious to someone who has no mayor title but being apointed by someone to curve the history of the world.
Therefore this is another populistic measure of destroying the system of values build by Europe and given to the world. It will be the CROWED of us who will fight to prove proven giving in this way power to "judges of true" to sell it on the market, as CNN todays cells the "trusted news" to those who are willing to "push" more for their "truth"
By allowing this you are allowing the genocide, cultural and civilizational of Croatian and Serbian people. You are erasing their past and their future. They are, against every available document, becomaning nothing more but ortodox and catolic bosnians in the land where clear historical events show something quite oposite. Will for you Indians become Pakistanies of Hindu religion.
By participating in this way of creating the history you are crossing the thin line between making sience the mean of propaganda war
:The above anon posted something on my talk page yesterday, despite the fact I've never been involved with this page. However, now that my attention has been drawn to this issue, I think I'll point out something about the above comments:
::However he [Maru] blocked my abalility to just take a text from any outstanding world resource and correct this PROPAGANDA presented as a history.
:As he should. We are not allowed to copy text from other resources, certainly not encyclopedia.com or anything else not licensed under the GFDL. 
::By allowing this [presumably meaning allowing the 'propaganda' to stay in the article] you are allowing the genocide, cultural and civilizational of Croatian and Serbian people. You are erasing their past and their future.
:I highly doubt anything on Wikipedia affects genocides or past and futures of anyone. It's not a Higher Power, after all.
:If there are serious NPOV issues in the current text, please feel free to bring up specific points that the editors here can help address. Shouting "propaganda" is not likely to get you anywhere. If there is issue with the article (and I'm speaking to the others here as well) then file an RFC. Hermione1980 01:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On a side note, the above poster (above me, I mean) appears to have copied his/her entry from . Please do not contribute copyrighted material. Thanks, Hermione1980 01:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a purpose of this ? 

message: Just to leave a note to watchers of this page that there is an ongoing vote about the form of BiH stub template here. Please vote if you're interested. Duja 08:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bosnia and Herzegovina stub 

message: I have preferred to used 'Bosnia-Hercegovina', as it is very close to
what the country is known as in Bosnian, Croatian, & Serbian.The use of 'Herzegovina' is derived from the German word 'Herzog', which is 'Duke'. - (Aidan Work 06:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of the country.

message: Hello!  Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring – and with the hope of resolving this issue –  you might be interested in a poll currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article.  Please weigh in! Bitola | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Republic of Macedonia#POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article|POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article]] 

message: :Why is article about history so long? it should by small,  this is only general history. Also,  page is too long! Boris Živ
Because Bosnia has a rich history which and the richest history in Balkans. That is the reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahahihihoho (talk • contribs) .
Any valid sugestion, instead of patetic patriotism? --Ante Perkovic 16:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  page is too long, history again 

message: Hi, everybody
I made some new municipality location maps baceuse existing ones are too small and with too low resolution. Please, comment here: .
--Ante Perkovic 22:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know. I recognised that mistake. That's why I paused with making other maps, unlike user:Dado and user:HarisM. Tell that to user:Dado, he made the map I copied borderrs from. --Ante Perkovic 14:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I see. See User_talk:Hahahihihoho#Changing_referenced_sources --Ante Perkovic 14:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need comment on maps I created 

message: Hi, everybody! I fixed coordinates for Bosnia locator maps! You may use ti now. --Ante Perkovic 13:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locator maps works! 

message: Readers could benifit from an informative and grammatically coherent economy section.  At the moment I don't think current section fulfills these purposes.  I can fix grammatical errors, but I cannot give the first two paragraphs any purpose.  
I hope to expand on Agriculture, Mining, manufacturing and forestry.  Is there anyone who is capable of writing these sub-sections? --M Little 12:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Economy 

message: The "current" map in the Demographics section leads me to think that all municipalities are ethnically homogenious, which is certainly not the case.  A map up to the same quality as the 1991 map would hopefully remind readers that BiH is somewhat still ethnically heterogenious.--M Little 12:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps in Demographics 

message: Unsourced txt largely incompatible with flow of the article
:KAMENICA, Bosnia, Aug. 17 -- The bodies of more than 1,000 victims of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre have been exhumed from the largest mass grave found to date in Bosnia, forensic experts said Thursday.
:Experts began digging in June 2006 near the eastern Bosnian village of Kamenica, close to the border with Serbia, where they have found eight  mass graves. The team has exhumed 144 complete and 1,009 partial skeletons.
Kpjas 10:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved unsourced txt 

message: See below
<<blocktext>>
:Area
: - Total	[[1_E10 
:heloo = 51,197 m²| km²]] (128th)
19,767 sq mi 
<</blocktext>>
Not sure I know how to deal with this - sorry!
::::Johnbibby 09:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Area - editing needed 

message: Can someone protect this page so only established users can edit it? --Emx 23:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect 

message: Bosnia and Herzegovina has the area of 51129 km2, as written in many books for elementary and high schools. Please be careful with this number, because the BiH borders haven't changed since 1995. --Emx 21:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area 

message: Too many of them. —KingIvan 08:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is my solution. I propose that some (most) of the images from the gallery be integrated into the article. It is nonsense leaving them in the gallery when they are of good use to the article itself. I mean, look at the article, 95% of the images are MAPS!!! It is nonsense, there needs to be an addition of images directly into the article. Look at other countries, most of them aim at showing the beauty of that specific country through pictures/photographs. This article needs some work (physically). Thanks, Vseferović 03:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I agree with you that a lot of them would be better place throughout the article, rather than in a huge gallery at the end. But still, I don't think it would hurt to remove completely about half of the images in the article - although they could be well suited to other articles, e.g since :Image:Waterfall_in_Jajce_Bosnia.JPG is already in the Jajce article it could probably be removed from this one. —KingIvan 06:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: When are the BH authorities going to conduct a population census? The last one was made in 1991, 16 years ago! A population census is to be held every decade. Even if we count the UN population census from 1996, more than 10 years have passed. --PaxEquilibrium 20:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population census 

message: “In Bosnia though, the distinction between a Bosnian and a Herzegovinian is maintained, parallel to ethnicity.”
Sorry, but there is no evidence or source here in the article that make these claims plausible or true.--MaGioZal 07:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are not using sources then let me explain. If a Bosniak (Muslim), who is from the region of Herzegovina, calls himself or herself a Herzegovinian he or she does it not out of nationalism rather out of heritage. They are proud to be Bosniak, Bosnian, etc. since that is official. Next, some Croats prefer to call themselves Herzegovinian since they work against the nation to further decentralize the nation (notice some, keeping strong nationalism). Thirdly, it is not very common to see Serbs calling themselves Herzegovinian since some see themselves as first Serb than Bosnian. This is what it actually means. It is not needed for the article, since it is pointless. Might I say I recognize both, but Herzegovinian is not on the census, so there is no reason to mention this. Thank you, Vseferović 02:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About an excerpt from the second paragraph

message: The article currently reads that:
:It is also notable that Bosnia and Herzegovina sued Serbia and Montenegro for the act of genocide [2], and that the International Court of Justice ruled that the Serbian state could not be held responsible for the mass killing, or complicity in the act.[13] The ICJ did find them at fault for not preventing the genocide.
What should be stated here is that the ICJ did not find that there was wider genocide in Bosnia (ie outside of the Srebrenica massacre). Instead, I think we should cite the Wiki article on the issue, which says:
:In its verdict, the Court found by 13 votes to 2 that Serbia had not committed or conspired to commit genocide.[2] It also concluded by 11 votes to 4 that Serbia was not complicit in genocide.[2] It did however find, by 12 votes to 3, that Serbia had violated the obligation under the Genocide Convention to prevent the genocide that occurred at Srebrenica.
It seems a lot more precise. Osli73 13:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is fine just as it is. The article is not about the ruling, it should not go into specific details as it strays from the topic. Vseferović 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICJ ruling on genocide 

message: The user 85.94.147.171 changed legend under ethnic maps from 1991 and 2006 from “Muslims by nationality” to “Muslims by religion”. It doesn’t make sense, we are talking about ethnic maps – not religious one.  For 2006 it should be renamed to Bosniaks.  For 1991 the word Muslims should be enough, or eventually “Muslims by nation” which is oxymoron. --N Jordan 02:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslims by nationality vs. Muslims by religion 

message: I've recently edited the Education section. However, an anonymous user seems to persist in reverting to the previous version. The problems with it are:
#no sources/references (other than the ones I have entered)
#insists on mentioning Nobel prize winner as an example of a high level of education - the Nobel prize in literature has very little to do with higher education and Vladimir Prelog may have been born in Bosnia and Herzegovina (but during the AustroHungarian empire), but left Bosnia as a young child (he worked and lived in Prague and Zurich).
#claims that many Bosnians have left and now work in "high-tech, academic and professional occupations" in Europe, N. America and Australia. Again, this is completely unsourced. How do we know that it is "many" and not "some" or "few"? How do we know that they're mainly represented in "high-tech, academic and professional occupations"?   
#several other WP:OR comments about the "Bosnian diaspora" and need for reform in the educational system, all unsourced.
CheersOsli73 07:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: The 1991 map sucks. I will upload the real one made by the university of belgrade's geography department. Can't do it now though, but I will try to soon. (LAz17 04:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1991 Map

message: :Image:307514940 7ac3e8aa14-1-.jpg 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 fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:307514940 7ac3e8aa14-1-.jpg

message: These edits  by User:69.209.226.2 and User:77.77.194.14, as well as  by User:213.240.3.139 all seem highly pov.  I encourage editors more expertise on the subject to edit them so they're verified and neutral.  --Ronz 02:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV edits