Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bosnia and Herzegovina is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
August 30, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
This is not a forum for general discussion of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Bosnia and Herzegovina: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • stop the vandalisms
  • verify contents
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Official name of country

Please see http://www.ustavnisud.ba/public/down/USTAV_BOSNE_I_HERCEGOVINE_hrv.pdf - there it reads that the name of the country is "Bosna i Hercegovina" without "Republic" or anything else. This is what was signed into law with the Dayton Agreement in 1995. "Republika/Republic of" should be removed from this wiki page. 69.207.134.22 22:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read carefully you would notice that under Kontinuitet (Continuation) it says Republika Bosna i Hercegovina, ciji je oficijelni naslov od sada "Bosna i Hercegovina"... – which most probably suggests to me that the official name is the Republic of B & H with B & H being used as a shortened version used throughout the document so that things do not become too cumbersome. I'm not sure about this, though, as it is a bit ambiguous - as is the English translation, which in fact seems moreso to suggest that it is not an abbreviation (but Croatian naslov od sada seems to pretty strongly suggest that it is only in reference and not an official name -- unlike in the Croatian Constitution where Republika Hrvatska is relatively short, adding the Republika to B & H makes it considerably more cumbersome to an already long name.
Britannica says that the official name is the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (2008 Ultimate Reference Suite, and also: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9110558 -- though the online version does not explicitly state it as official, unlike the CD-ROM version but it definitely directly and unambiguously implies it at the start of the article). This I also consider strong evidence.
I don't know, really. Actually on looking at the previous army name Army_of_the_Republic_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina and the current one Military of Bosnia-Herzegovina and also the insignia of the former, it seems most probable that Britannica is wrong and that at initial proclamation of independence B & H was the Republic of B & H but now it's just B & H following Dayton. Hmmm. Seems that naslov od sada might be a reference to a renaming. ? Moralshear666 (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
"oficijelni naslov od sada" literally means "the official title henceforth." The fact that it states that R BiH's now official title is just BiH is a good indication to me that the article refers to the name of the country and not to the reference of the country in the rest of the Constitution (note that Article I, paragraph 2, it reads "Bosnia and Herzegovina is made up of two entities: Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska (hereinafter "the entities). There is no such "hereinafter" explanation for name "Republika Bosna i Hercegovina." The English version of the Constitution reads: "The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the official name of which shall henceforth be "Bosnia and Herzegovina." - that's pretty clear to me there.
Also, note that the actual title of the constitution is "Ustav Bosne i Hercegovine" not "Ustav Republike Bosne i Hercegovine." The only time "Republika" is mentioned is in Article I, paragraph 1 Kontinuitet, which to me serves a purpose of renaming the country. If you take a look at the Bosnian version of the Constitution, there it reads "zvanično ime od sada" - ime meaning "name" as opposed to the Croatian naslov which semantically is closer to English "title" than "name." In any case, the whole Kontinuitet article to me reads as an explanation of "Republika Bosna i Hercegovina" now being known as "Bosna i Hercegovina," especially since it also states that "may keep as Bosnia and Herzegovina membership [of the UN] and seek membership in organizations within the UN and other international organizations." I am rather convinced that Article I, paragraph 1 is rather unambiguous.
Here is the complete text in English: http://www.ustavnisud.ba/eng/p_stream.php?kat=518 69.207.128.38 (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OHR until 2008

May you please check and update the sections about the High Representative? It is the news of these days that OHR will continue to work until 2008 -- Dans-Sverige

[edit] Population

The population figuers have not declined by more than a million people. Look at the lin [1]. At the same time no one (but No. 13) is questioning the numbers. Show some evidence... Vseferović 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The very source to which the population estimate is calling itself upon and places Bosnia and Herzegovina at 126th place says the estimate is 3,935,000. (List of countries by population). On the other side I would like to see some evidence for the ridiculous inflated number of over 4,5 million. --No.13 13:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the population of Bosnia, but it seems two very well respected sources use the figure 3.9 million:

So, it would seem that 3.9 m is the most widely used figure. Cheers Osli73 19:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The 4,5 m figure seems to relate to the last official census, carried out before the war (at least judging from the official BiH tourism website.Osli73 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GPD PPP

The given GDP PPP of 45 billion was to high: This years IMF number is U$D 27.410 billion: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/02/data/weorept.aspx?pr.x=80&pr.y=17&sy=2003&ey=2007&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=963&s=PPPWGT&grp=0&a= and the GDP PPP per capita number is U$D 6,884.079: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/02/data/weorept.aspx?pr.x=80&pr.y=16&sy=2003&ey=2007&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=963&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a= noclador 09:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Demographics again

Please indicate what sources you're using for demographic information when you change something. If the current source does not match the data, please indicate so. Thanks! -- Ronz  17:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, could you please enable your email? 65.10.158.218 06:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I’m removing the following sentence since there is no source: “ The majority of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina are Muslims at an estimated 52%.[citation needed] There is also a large minority of Christians ortodoxs and Roman Catholic” Instead of that, I’ll add the following sentence: “According to the CIA World Factbook, 40% of populations are (Sunni) Muslims, 31% are Orthodox Christians, 15% are Roman Catholics, and 14% are atheists or have other religious affiliation. “ --N Jordan 17:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of Hercegovina and the Original Herzog

The part of the page that deals with name of the country is simply wrong in a way that it fails to name the original Herzog. Now I know that this mistake is not the only of its kind, but the section is short enough and at the top of the page, so it does warrant accuracy. Tzuppy 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population figures

Please leave the present United Nations population figure estimate (as before), as the ones in the CIA World Factbook are misleading. Even the IMF uses a figure like the UN one to calculate GDP per capita amounts. Bosnia does not have 4.5 million permanent inhabitants, and the figure is most definitely closer to 4 million. —Insanely Beautiful 05:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vladimir Perics incorrect map

There is a couple of things that is incorrect in his map and this is enough reason to delet it.

1. Jajce is not Croat majority city, it isnt even divided, it is now bosniak majority city and we can get this out of 2 evidence, first we have election result where bosniak parties got 60 % and from the municipality where we have 15 bosniaks out of 25 which is 60 % and gives bosniaks absolute control over the Jajce municipality and now we can do whatever we want without asking croats.

2. Brcko, cause the entity line doesnt exist anymore and every election/municipality result goes through District level, not entity level cause entities have no control over neither the city, villages or any part of the District. Also no cencus have been made and many bosniaks and croats have returned to the city. There is absolutely no evidence that serbs form majority in any part of the District, be it the city, Brezovo Polje, Palanka, Maoca, Brka or other parts.

3. Mostar. Cause in this case it looks like the croats have majority in the entire municipality! How wrong! First of all they dont even form majority in the city nor in the municipality. And how can croat colours be in eastern mostar where there practically arent croats at all! The municipality should either be coloured completely neutral or have green colour for bosniaks in eastern mostar which is 50 % of the entire municipality and red for the other half of the municipality.

4. Bosanski Petrovac cause here we get information that serbs form majority which is clearly untrue. If we go at the election result, we bosniaks form between 55 and 60 % cause no serbs are voting for SDP, and if we look at Republika Srpska even SDA got more votes than SDP and that says everyting on who the serbs are voting. In this case, we have no evidence at all that serbs even form 45 % of the population.

5. Novi Travnik. In this case you could believe croats form majority and as we all know Novi Travnik is completely divided where neither bosniaks nor croats form majority.

6. Vares. In this case you would believe bosniaks form majority but only small one and this seriously damages the map. That is untrue cause bosniaks form 65 % of the population which is exactly the number croats form in Zepce and why then should Zepce be all red while Vares be only slight greeen?

This and many more untrue and incorrect things in Perics map clearly shows that this isnt valid for a reliable page such as Wikipedia. Visca el barca 15:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopediae, and not a place to "put" your private conclusions. Please stict to the official demographic data (and as you've been told a million times election results aren't demographic). And you can not divide some municipalities in which Bosniaks don't have majority (Novi Travnik, Mostar, etc) to Bosniak and not-Bosniak parts while deeninig same rights to the non-Bosniak population in Bosniak majority municipalities. If you think of demographic division of the country under the municipality level, than you got to go from village to village...(for examples Croats around Vareš, Kraljeva Sutjeska, Novi Šeher, Guča Gora, Nova Bila, Uskoplje, Uzdol, Kostajnica near Konjic etc...) Ceha 16:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC).

Oh, you can be so damn sure that CROATS DONT FORM MAJORITY IN neither Novi Travnik or Mostar. Be so sure about that! Tawhid Jihad 22:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


Ok crazy Arab:) What's wrong with you? Ceha 12:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am only telling the reality. Tawhid Jihad 14:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that is possible to talk to you without exclamation points. Could you give some evidence for your claims? (Ceha 16:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)).

Can you give any evidence of croats form majority in Novi Travnik/Mostar without your horrible crusader nationalism? Tawhid Jihad 21:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


Look Tawhid, please do not mention nationalism and stop being paranoid. Here are links for that data, you could google it out, or look it on wikipedia... [[2]] [3]. Where are sources for you claims? Ceha 08:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

First of all those maps doesnt show anything, and in the federal estimation can you give any source for demographics cause I have looked in that site about 5 times and I still cant see any demographic information?

First of all, in Novi Travnik the situation is completely divided like in Mostar. Tawhid Jihad 18:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Also in Jajce bosniaks form 60 % of population, and are in majority just like in Bugojno, Donji Vakuf, Gornji Vakuf, Fojnica, Northern Konjic, Hadzici, Travnik, Zenica, Visoko, Breza, Ilidza, Ilijas, Kakanj and in other parts of central bosnia like in Gromiljak,Brestovsko and other parts in northern Kisljak municipality, and in many parts of Busovaca, Novi Travnik and Vitez. Tawhid Jihad 18:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorce your data. Everything you just said here are just unchecked claims without verifible source. Map shows ethnic percentage on municipality level. If someone would speak about village level, then you would get something similar to 1995-front line borders (with some corections in Kraljeva Sutjeska, Vareš, Novi Travnik, Travnik, Bugojno, Jajce, Konjic, Mostar, Stolac and Tuzla) (or better say most of divided municipalities). But I don't get you. What are you traying to prove? That more Croats have fled from mixed areas that Bosniaks? That more Croats were ethnicly cleansed? If you want to talk about ethnical divisions try [[4]] or prewar situation:) Ceha 22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

I am trying to say that it is no coincident that croat parties got 70 % of the votes in Jajce in year 2002 while bosniak parties got 60 % of the votes in year 2006. That is no coincident or a massise vote campaign coordinated by bosniak refugees from around the world. No, rather that is the situation today and that is the current reality.

And it isnt a cooinsident that exactly 50 % of the land in Mostar municipality belong to east mostar where over 90 % are bosniak and it is not a massive bosniak diaspora campaign that made the municipality level in Mostar divided exactly.

Also as for central bosnia, yes you got ethnically cleansed, and this time succesfully cause now there are around 90 000 croats in central bosnia canton and around 150 000 bosniak and now when Jajce, Donji Vakuf, Bugojno, Gornji Vakuf, Fojnica and Travnik are bosniak majority in that canton, you croats cant even manage to have majority in Novi Travnik, Vitez and Busovaca.

That is the current reality and even if you form 55 % in Vitez and Busovaca that doesnt change the fact that 55 % isnt enough to be counted as "majority". Tawhid Jihad 00:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If we go for the election result and municipality formation (which is the only information we got right now) then we can get this municipality demographic result for the municipalities in central bosnia canton (will not count other central bosnia municipalities).


Jajce = Bosniak 60% - Croat 40 % Donji Vakuf = Bosniak 99 % - Other 1 % Bugojno = Bosniak 80 % - Croat 20 % Gornji Vakuf = Bosniak 65 % - Croat 35 % Fojnica = Bosniak 35 % - Croat 65 % Travnik = Bosniak 78 % - Croat 22 % Novi Travnik = Bosniak 49-51 % - Croat 49-51 % Vitez = Croat 55 % - Bosniak 45 % Busovaca = Croat 53 % - Bosniak 47 % Kiseljak = Croat 89% - Bosniak 7 % Kresevo = Croat 95 % - Bosniak 5 %

This is as I pointed out the only reliable information we got since there is no government information, no cencus and thats why we got only how the municipality is formed ethnically and how the election result ended.

As we see bosniaks form absolutely majority in all important municipalities along Vrbas, all the way from Vranica to Vlasinje in Jajce, we control the entire Vranica mountain area from Fojnica to Gornji Vakuf, Vlasic mountain in Travnik, we controll the 3 biggest cities in the canton which is Travnik as the biggest city and as its capital, Bugojni as the second biggest and Jajce as the third biggest city.

This clearly shows that you croats got nothing, even in the municipalities you are majority in you are majority only by 55 % with Kiseljak and Kresevo as exception and the only completely divided municipality in the canton is Novi Travnik.

And as for the rest of central bosnia municipalities, we all know they are pure bosniak as Zenica, Kakanj, Visoko, Breza, Ilidza and so on. No croats at all. Tawhid Jihad 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Croats are one of the constituive nations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. BiH is surrounded whith Croatia on 2/3 of its borders. Žepče is a central bosnian municipality in which Croats have majority. Usora also. There are Croats in Vareš (Daštansko) and some of them are still existent in Kraljeva Sutjeska (that is Kakanj municipality). As I said before, you cannot draw a line and say if some nation has more than 65% than the whole municipality is of that nation, and if it is less than it will be divided. If someone would change municipal borders than every village is going to be counted, and compared to its 1991 national status... Ceha 08:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC). Also this is an encyclopediae. There are no "we" in this matter. Try to be objective and applay the same rules to other nations as you apply to your own. And all of your data is based on the election results which under wikipedia rules have no demographic meaning.

Haha, you are the one who are not objective!

And what has Croatia to do with the demographics in Bosnia? Cause even if you are constitutional in Bosnia you are a minority, cause if you make up 11 % of the population then you are a minority whatever the law says.

As for Zepce it is just as croat majority as Fojnica, Vares, Jajce or Gornji Vakuf. But dont forget that Zepce is a part of Zenicko dobojski kanton which is 90 % bosniak and which makes the Zepce croats be governed and ruled by bosniaks. And Usora, you cant seriously take that municipality serious?

It has barely 3000 people living there while it isnt even visible at the map.

And central bosnia area is 80 % bosniak while croats form around 17-18 % of the population. You cant seriously mean that you croats got anything important in Bosnia, you dont control any big city in bosnia, the biggest city you control is Siroki Brijeg in the rocks in Hercegovina.

And you are of course a minority, you have % just as much as we bosniaks have in Montenegro. You form 11 % of BiH population, while bosniaks form around 11 % of the population in Montenegro. Tawhid Jihad 10:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

On [[5]] you can find definitions of objectivity. Wikipedia is not a kinder-garden where anybody can put unsorced informations. Do you know the percentige of italian speakers in Switzerland? And they are still constituve nation... Do you deny the laws of the state in which you are living and under which the Croats are equal with other 2 nations? Educate yourself a little bit. And stop refering to yourself as general spokesmen for the Bosniak nation. It doesn't look well on you>:) Ceha 12:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC).

I am objective and as a citizen of Jajce I can by all objective methods point out the fact that the center of Jajce is ethnically clean bosniak area.

I have concluded following things:

1. Jajce is majority bosniak 2. Novi Travnik and Mostar municipality is ethnically divided 3. Central bosnia is almost entirely bosniak area with small exception of Kiseljak, Busovaca, Vitez and Kresevo but all those municipalities together doesnt even form 60 000 citizens 4. Croats are constitutional in Bosnia, yes, but bosniaks are also constitutional in Montenegro especially now after the new constitution was approved which makes us constitutional and have equal rights as other people in Montenegro

As you see this isnt nationalism, this is how the situation is. Tawhid Jihad 13:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ethnically clean is a bad word:) 1. That is your subject opinion. There is no goverment (or independent) verification of your claimes. And this is encyclopedia. 2. There are large portions of both nations in both municipalities. But the last calculations of federal bureau of statistics (fzs) says that there are more Croats in those to municipalities than Bosniaks. 3.Kiseljak, Kreševo, Dobretići, Vitez and Busovača are Croat majority municipalities acording to fzs. So are Jajce and Novi Travnik. Bosniaks form majority in municipalities of Travnik, Donji Vakuf, Uskoplje,Bugojno and Fojnica as they did before the war, but now with a lot bigger percentage (in Travnik and Bugojno they are now apsolute majority-->and they were only relative before the war). 4.I didn't read Montenegro's constitution and I can not comment something without knowing basic facts. But status of Bosniaks in Montenegro doesn't have anything to do with status of Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina. For example, Montenegro could be just a Bosniak state. And that would not change status of BH-Croats. Ceha 14:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC).

Thats a lie and you know it!

First of all, the federal bureau of statistics doesnt on any page show demographic result and if you really believe in this lie, then whu dont you show source? Show source for any demographic result!

Jajce is bosniak majority, Novi Travnik is equally divided like Mostar.

Its you who wrote unsourced propaganda like croats forming majority in Novi Travnik and Jajce. You say something without showing any source or evidence, you say it says in the fzs but as I said, I have searched that page a couple of times now and never I can find any demographic result.

However the only result we got so far is the election result which CLEARLY SHOWS WHO is majority in Jajce, Novi Travnik and Mostar.

Period. Tawhid Jihad 17:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Again. Are you stupid? Elections do not say anything about the demographic data. In Uskoplje-Gornji Vakuf major of municipality is a Croat. Does that makes Uskoplje Croatian majority municipality? I've gave you the link. Try to find it.

Ceha 22:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC).

You are stupid!

You gave me a GENERAL LINK without source? Cause in that link you showed NEVER are to be seen any kind of ethnic demographic result!

Thats why we have to go after the election result which also is a very reliable result and the election result clearly shows that we bosniaks form majority in Jajce, and that Novi Travnik, Mostar, Vitez and Busovaca is not croat majority.Tawhid Jihad 10:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'm repeting this one more time (I'think is now close to a hundred:) elections are not valliable data, under wikipedia politcy. Don't use exclamation points when you are talking to somebody cause it makes you look like a 9-years old. I've given you a link of the site from wich that data was taken out when those maps were made. I'think that was about 2 years ago. Try to find correct source. And if you cant't find something I think there is even telefon number on that page so you can call fzs and check it out... No?:) Ceha 15:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Fzs has never made any estimation on ethnic background in municipalities, hence you cant give me any source. As for the jajceportal estimation, that is taken from nowhere because they do not mention any source confirming what they wrote and you can only, and ONLY find those estimation in that site and nowhere else. Tawhid Jihad 20:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Call them. It is easy:p From where did you get jajceportal? FZS made those estimations in 2005. No one mentioned jajceportal. Ceha 22:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No they didnt. And you are a liar, cause you openly lie. Tawhid Jihad 14:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

2005 on fzs pages were calculations (procjene or whateever) about ethnic data. I'm telling you to call them, because that is the truth (if you cannot find that data on the net). And you can call your mother a liar, not me. Little nazi.

Ceha 16:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Liar - a person telling uncorrect things

That doesnt mean it is bad to be a liar. Tawhid Jihad 12:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone should have read you a story about shapeard and the wolf when you was a kid and perhaps than you would know why it is bed to be a liar.

Ceha 17:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I really dont care about your opinion cause you croats have nothing, you dont control Mostar despite all atempts done during the war, all croats movin in to the city and so on.

And in central bosnia you are ethnically cleansed, and in the case Jajce you lost the power politically, not military like in Travnik, Novi Travnik, Donji Vakuf, Bugojno, Gornji Vakuf, Fojnica and so on.

And lets not forget Vares where you were majority, but now whe are majority. And also Maglaj, Zavidovici lost all of its croats. Tawhid Jihad 08:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And of course dont forget Konjic, Jablanica (especially western part of the municipality), Kakanj (especially Kraljeva Sutjeska) and other municipalities.

Dont forget that 50 % of your holy city Mostar is 96 bosniak. Tawhid Jihad 08:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Of which power are you talking about? Bosnia is one of the most undeveloped states in the whole Europe. What use is to you majority in some willage when half of population has left it? And the half which stayed would surely left if it had the chance. Time to grow up.

Ceha 08:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Its easy for you to say cause you are a christian.

I am sure muslims in Travnik, Jajce, Mostar, Sarajevo, Bihac, Brcko, Zenica, Visoko and other places are much more happy with living in muslim cities where you can here the muezzin every day 5 times and where it is normal to be a muslim then going to a christian country, with no mosques, no muezzin, rascism, anti muslim behaviour, insulting of our prophet (salla allahu alejhi we sellem). Tawhid Jihad 14:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If they were so much happier, western europe wouldn't have so much moslim belivers in it (cca 10% in France and Germany).But I don't see the point in this discussion anymore. If you were a true beliver you would sympathise with other "people of the book". Wouldn't you? Ceha 20:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I know its hard for you to accept you are cleaned out from central bosnia, and that 50 % of Mostar is pure muslim. Tawhid Jihad 08:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And statmets like this only confirm that this discussion is useless. Ceha 09:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved for discussion - Paragraph on population

This paragraph seems more appropriate for the talk page, but perhaps we can find portions of it that are fit for the article:

Around 4.3 million people lived in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991, prior to its 1992–1995 war. Knowing the current population of the country is a difficult issue due to the lack of a recent official census, and also due to large seasonal population changes in the country because of its position in Europe: between Croatia and Serbia and close to prosperous Western Europe—with the country having a large diaspora which often vacations back home to its comparatively worse-off homeland. Unsurprisingly figures fluctuate. As of February 2007 its population is estimated at approximately 4 million people by the International Monetary Fund for use in calculation of GDP per person figures and by the United Nations, and this may be considered the best de facto population indicator in opposition to more inflated figures (up to half a million more) such as those from the CIA World Factbook.

--Ronz 00:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures of people.

Article should have pictures of people, not just buildings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.38.122 (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious Claim re Churches?

I'm surprised, to say the least, to learn that "There were only two Roman Catholic churches in Bosnia-Herzegovina up until the occupation of Austro-Hungary, and no Serb Orthodox churches at all." Do we perhaps mean that there were only two churches STILL OPEN AND ACTIVE AT THE TIME of the Austro-Hungarian takeover? It sounds like we're saying only two churches existed in Bosnia at any point before 1878.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed vandalism

"Boznia and Herzegovina went there sperate ways on monday the 18th of Feburaru 2008 when they claimed inderpendance!!"- from what i have heard this is not true so it will be removed- c_falco7- GMT 20:24 21st February —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.85.17 (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Banja Luka Capital of Autonomous Republika Srpska

Someone keeps changing the subtitle of the picture "Banja Luka" from "Banja Luka, the capital of Republika Srpska" to "Banja Luka, the second largest city". Obviously someone is changing it. Banja Luka is recognized by the world fact book and other internationally aclaimed sources as being the Capitol of Republika Srpska which is largly autonomous as well as the second largest city. Sarajevo's picture can gladly state "..., the capital of Bosnia". However, Banja Luka is the Capitol of the other half (state) of Bosnia. You can compare it to Richmond being the capitol of Virginia state. I took the liberty of changing it back to the previous subtitle and will continue to do so if this persists. It is only fair. Thank You!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daritto7117 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of 'Bosnian' as an adjective to describe the country and its people as a whole

Would someone from (the region of) Herzegovina still refer to their own nationality as "Bosnian"? There needs to be a look done at the adjectives established dictionaries and encyclopedias use when refering to B&H Mayumashu (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "Bosniak" as a claimed ethnicity

The term 'Bosniak' originated in the media during the war when they didn't know what to call the non-Serb and non-Croat population of Bosnia, meaning the Muslim Bosnians. This is not a recognized word or ethnicity in any written text pertaining to Bosnians. They are either Bosnians or Muslim Bosnians, but not 'Bosniaks'. It's not a real word in English and I suggest changing it. I think it was meant to refer to the original group called 'Bosnjak', which is supposed to include all people of Bosnia, regardless of ethnicity. But this word does not actually translate into 'Bosniak' in English and does not distinguish one ethnicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admira 112 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you on pills or something? Get your facts straight and read Dayton Peace Agreement, you will find Bosniaks there. It would also be beneficial for you to study Bosnian history, but of course, you should refrain from Serbian propagandist books. Bosniak (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A few things I think could be different/corrected

-First of all I think we could use a better picture for Banja Luka -Second..I could be wrong but isn't Tuzla the third largest instead of fourth? (as is stated in the caption for the Tuzla picture) and if I am wrong..where is a Zenica picture then? -Last but not least ..who cares what % a particular ethnic group inhabits in one city or another.. I mean the very notion that people bicker over such trivial matters is the reason I speak/write English today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.44.68 (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"In 1991, the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, composed of Croat-majority areas in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, declared its independence, but was not internationally recognized as a sovereign nation."

Herzeg-Bosnia never declared independence, this is very stupid propaganda.

[edit] HRHB

"In 1991, the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, composed of Croat-majority areas in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, declared its independence, but was not internationally recognized as a sovereign nation."

Herzeg-Bosnia never declared independence, this is very stupid propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.45.70 (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)