Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:02, 15 April 2006

One-word name of Republic of Srpska

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)

Srpska - noun and adjective

You have said "using the previous precedents such as the word "hrvatska" (which means both "Hrvatska" - Croatia and "hrvatska" - Croatian as an adjective, f.), the word Srpska was also declared to be a proper noun". There is no precedent with the word "hrvatska". In Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian language almost every name of the state is both noun and adjective - Bugarska (Bulgaria), Madjarska (Hungary), Grcka (Greece), Njemacka (Germany), Francuska (France), Engleska (England), etc. So, the noun "Srpska" was not declared to be a noun. The noun Srpska, as the name of the state, the republic or the entity is completely based on language rules and the spirit of Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian language.

I propose that you either delete this part (from the words "because the word" to the words "declared to be a proper noun", or to explain the creation of names of states in Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian language.

Stevo

Tomoslav and Kresimir IV -Joy edits

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)

History

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)

I agree. User:Efghij did that now. Cheers, Efghij! --Shallot 01:30, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Several users have already noticed that the history section appears too long (see above notes by Jiang, Efghij and Shallot).

Given that suggestion, moving non-essential text to the separate History of Bosnia and Herzegovina page is a good idea. That way, only the essential and most informative parts would remain on the main country entry for Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole, while those interested in the history will surely read more details on the history page.

With that in mind, I've tried to shorten the text of the Pre-Slavic period. Furthermore, it is probably not very useful to introduce many "tribe" names as the first thing that people will read on the history section. What's needed is a brief and informative overview without too many dates and names, some of which remain open to dispute because evidence for definitive claims about this period remains scarce. --Kelime

name

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)

Non-Islamic Bosniaks registering among Yugoslavs

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

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

Done that now. --Joy

Furthermore, the later census result is also indicative -- the percentage of Bosniaks is noticably larger, despite the negative factors like wartime emigration. --Joy 00:27, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, like others haven't wartime "emigrated". Nikola 01:25, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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 21:44, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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)

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 11:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Bosnia" redirect

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 21:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Language spoken in .ba

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 18:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the Brcko District

The claim that the Brcko District is not part of either the Federation or Republika Srpska might de facto be true (that is how things are run on the ground), but de iure it is false. If the Brcko District is not part of either entity, this would imply that the District is in fact the third entity. This would be a major breach of the general framework of the Dayton peace agreement (and the constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina), which states that the country is internally composed of only two entities. Also, the Brcko District as 'not part of either entity' would make the territorial formula agreed at Dayton (49% of Bosnia-Herzegovina as Republika Srpska, 51% as the Federation) unworkable. OHR, Office of the High Representative (http://www.ohr.int), provided a clarification on the status of the Brcko District, stating that the District is in fact a condominium of both entities. This means that the territory of the District is shared by both entities, although the entities exercise no executive power there. In other words, the Brcko District territory is both Republika Srpska and the Federation. Technically, this would apply to the whole territory of the District - in that way, there is no third entity, and 49-51% formula is (somehow) preserved. That said, it should be pointed out that the Brcko District was proclaimed on the whole territory of the prewar Brcko municipality. According to the Dayton map, 42% of the prewar Brcko municipality (including the town of Brcko) ended up in the Republika Srpska, while 58% of the prewar Brcko municipality ended up in the Federation. Although the Brcko District was proclaimed in 1999, IEBL (Inter Entity Boundary Line) within its territory was never officially abolished; IEBL plays no administrative function within the District, except to mark the line beyond which the Bosnian Serb Army (Vojska Republike Srpske) traveling through the District can not go (and vice versa for the Federation Army). Thus, it remains unclear how the entities hold the condominium over the whole District if the IEBL still exists on the books, and the District was created out of uneven chunks of both entity's territory. Given the fact that the Republika Srpska never officially accepted the arbitration result (one of the reasons IEBL was never officially abolished), the only solution is to show the Republika Srpska territory within the Brcko District (42% of it) on the Republika Srpska entity map, but color it differently, and the same formula should be used vis-à-vis the Federation territory within the Brcko District (58% of it) on the Federation entity map. When you put all of this together, you have a map of Bosnia-Herzegovina showing only two entities but also acknowledging the existence of the Brcko District - the neutral position.

p.s.

The 'condominium' idea or the Brcko District is demonstrated by the way in which people declare themselves within the District. Citizens of the District have a right to hold entity citizenship of either Republika Srpska or the Federation, and have the right to vote on their entity's elections, although they are banned from serving in either entity's army.

Boundary inside Brčko District

If the proportion of Bosnian entities are 51%-49% and the IEBL has been theoretically preserved inside the Brčko District then how come RS has 42% and the Federation 58% of it? Does that mean that now, practically, FBiH is somewhat smaller than RS if we exclude the Brčko District? Cukor 09:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bosnia not formal protectorate

Bosnia not formal protectorate Even if there are different sources that says that, Bosnia is not formally an international protectorate. Kosovo is because of Resolution no. 1244 of the UN Security Council stated it, but Bosnia, meaning Bosnia i Hercegovina (BiH) is not formally like that. It's wrong writing that it is. Just check the dayton agreement on www.ohr.int, you won't find anything. There lots of authors that says BiH is a protectorate (see Chandler David, Faking Democracy after Dayton, Bose Sumantra, G.Knaus Travails on the European Raj), and I do agree too, but formally BiH is a member of the Council of Europe and it has a chair at United Nation, which a protectorate, like Kosovo, doesn't. Alexandra Tomaselli, law student.

Herzegovina or Hercegovina?

I have heard it referred to as "Hercegovina" Revolución 02:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. And? We acknowledge it in the intro, and on its page. --Joy 09:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I meant the title of the article itself. Revolución 01:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Herzegovina is most common in English. Hercegovina is in Bosnian and Croatian. The title is fine--Dado 02:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Revolución 04:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Demographic

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)

1st Armored Division

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. 14:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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 08:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

CoA issue

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)

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)

Since the new format for the infobox was added to this article we again have a problem with the CoA being too big. I am not sure how was this fixed last time. Please help. --Dado 04:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What is a purpose of this ?

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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Bosnia and Herzegovina stub

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)

Name of the country.

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))

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

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)