User talk:Fomafomich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fomafomich, I would like to thank you for your valueable and above all entertaining commentary on Bosnians discussion page :). I am writing up an anthropological addition to the article and your help would be much appriciated. --Dado 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Herzegovinians

I appreciate your comments. However, I am not so sure that it is as simple as you'd like it to believe. Herzegovina was preceded by Zahumlje or Hum, which Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca was governor of, and which existed long before his time. Herzegovina is also known as having fended off Ottoman forces longer than Bosnia, showing a certain distinctness even then.

Since the nineteenth century, what was called by the Ottomans, Bosnia, has been called Bosnia and Herzegovina. As long as that is the name of the country, Herzegovina is more than just a region. It is one part of a country.

The Herzegovinians article was largely written in response to the Bosnians article. This article makes it seem that all Bosnia and Herzegovinan nationals are Bosnians. However, there is no reason that a Bosnia and Herzegovinan national cannot be considered a Herzegovinian, especially when they might find the alternative offensive. The reasons that they consider "Bosnian" offensive are complicated, and discussing it here will overcomplicate things.

From personal knowledge, Herzegovinian Croat suspects and witnesses at the ICTY complained about being referred to as Bosnian Croats to the point where it had to be changed to B&H Croats. The English world does not make the distinction between Bosnians and Herzegovinians because Herzegovinian is too difficult to say and English lacks a single word (natively we have bosanskohercegovačko).

Also, citing distant historic examples proves nothing about the Herzegovinians of today. If many of them don't want to be called Bosnians, don't call them that. It's as simple as that. However, you would be surprised how insistent some groups are on forcing the Bosnian label.

I won't push this issue anymore. Thanks for the response, even if we may disagree. --Thewanderer 00:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mehmed-pasha Sokolovich

I generally agree with your statement; but however, I do not want to open a WWIII. I was (then) a little frustrated because I judged that the other party was being one-sided, using only one source and grappling for everystraw to deny what is generally accepted in the world and is a fact.

However, I value all sources (as long as they obbey the reaches of logic, I must add :). So, I will not add the "Serbian" origin unless Emir Arven agrees that. Unfortunately, he himself has admitted that he will never agree to that, so I think that it's best to leave non-defined this way. Howver, what I found troublesome is the emergence of tags and citation neededs for everything that could connect him to his Serbian roots (his brother becoming the Patriarch of the Serb Orthodox Church; as well as two of his nephews; his scholarship at Mileševa,...) It is this that's the actual issue.

Regards and I hope that you will comment further! --HolyRomanEmperor 22:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I am only wondered that every second sentence of the article would then be ...it is believed... or ...some say.

Anyway, when I tried to insert that; it was changed by the opposing party (User:Emir Arven, in this case) to According to Serb authors... On the other hand Bosniak historians consider that above thesis is never proven. They think it is another Serb myth mixed with nationalism and anachronism.; so you can understand why I reacted with such turmoil on the talk page. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)