Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina

Contents

1 Tomoslav and Kresimir IV -Joy edits 2 History 3 name 4 Non-Islamic Bosniaks registering among Yugoslavs 5 "Bosnia" redirect 6 Language spoken in .ba 7 Regarding the Brcko District 8 Bosnia not formal protectorate 9 Herzegovina or Hercegovina?

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)

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 [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)

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 [shallot] 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 [shallot] 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 [shallot] 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnia_and_Herzegovina&diff=9218811&oldid=9218750) 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)

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.

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 [shallot] 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)