Talk:Bosnia (region)

Bosnian

No one going to Mostar and is from Mostar will call themselves Bosnian, except for familiarity. This is an encyclopedia, and such information is good to have, although not super-important. Dado, please stop being so nervous about the breaches of statehood of B&H, because, if the UN recognized the country, there's no reason to fear it's existence in Wikipedia. Also, these little tidbits help people understand the region better. I don't understand why you work up a paranioa!!! I am unhappy that people don't have a clue about Herzegovina, and these things should be publicized!!! Ogidog --24.2.242.93 06:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

meanings

This article needs major work and improvements. Bosnia does not automatically denote everything other than Herzegovina in B&H, just as Croatia doesn't denote everything other than Dalmatia and Slovenia in the Republic of Croatia. Bosnia and Herzegovina, despite the name, is not composed of just two regions. Its composed of dozens of small historical-geographic regions. Herzegovina is one of these small historical-geographic regions. Bosnia, as the primary name of the country for centuries, means a number of things. It can mean (in no particular order):

1. Common term for the entire country, including Herzegovina. Used for centuries.
2. The part of the country that isn't Herzegovina. Technically not correct, but Herzegovina has historically been the most significant region after of B&H after Bosnia so the other regions more easily fall under the category "Bosnia".
3. Bosnia proper / earliest historical core. Meaning, a small area covering about 20% of modern B&H, stretching from Sarajevo to Zenica. Center of the earliest Bosnian state.
4. Or it can mean this early historical core along with other smaller regions associated with "Bosnia" from the earliest times. This includes Zavrsje (Livno, etc.), Romanija (just east of Sarajevo), Usora (Doboj area), Soli (Tuzla),aeverything up to Jajce and "Bosnian Krajina", and perhaps a part of Posavina. The other main regions of B&H (Podrinje, Krajina, Semberija) dont fit as neatly into the category. This is, in my opinion, the most correct definition to use when talking of Bosnia as a sub-region of Bosnia & Herzegovina. Others may disagree.

My two cents. Asim Led 20:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Please go ahead and add these historical references (3 & 4; I think 1 & 2 are now clearly in the articles); I'm not watching the "History of BiH" article so I don't know what would be duplicated, but few forewords here won't harm in any case. Duja 08:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Damir Mišić

I beg of you to stop this revert war. Bosnia is in the northern part of Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Thewanderer 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It was surely not me who set this war off - and as for Bosnia you should know that hercegovina wasn't even mentioned in the name untill the 1800-century - teh correct name today would be Bosnia-Herzegovina and not Bosnia and Herzegovina. Damir Mišić

Unfortunately, you do not get to name the country. The country's name is Bosnia and Herzegovina as you can see on the country's Wikipedia article or in the CIA World Factbook. Also, in Roman times most of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina were part of the Dalmatian province. This however is not the case anymore. Names changes and regions change. --Thewanderer 02:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

See my comment above. For a long time in history Herzegovina was just considered a subset of Bosnia. That's prevalent even today. The people of Bosnia and Herzegovina are not called "Bosnia and Herzegovinians", they're called "Bosnians". The accepted adjective is not "Bosnian and Herzegovinian" but "Bosnian". I don't necessarily agree with Damir's methods, but he does have a point. Asim Led 04:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Asim, the point that I am trying to elucidate is exactly what Asim is writing, do you understand thewanderer?. Damir Mišić 12:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I reworded the article entirely, fixing some hoRible speLing and cleaning multiple statements that official borders don't exist and that Bosnia is on north and Herzegovina on south. I wonder what at all was the subject of the quarrel on previous versions except... <keeping my mouth shut>. Duja 07:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Damir, please stop inserting nonsense. I don't see a reason for a revert war over an article about a geographic region. Yes, you're right – "The area of Bosnia comprises approximately 51,129 km², by other words 100% of the territory of the present-day state of Bosnia and Herzegovina." – I don't understand that, and I doubt that anyone would. Herzegovina is part of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina (often abbreviated to Bosnia), and not part of region of Bosnia. Is it so difficult to comprehend? Duja 08:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of adjective Bosnian

Although Damir, as you say, Bosnian is the commonly accepted way of calling the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, It does not mean its the polically correct. Just as the Inuit people are commonly called Eskimo's does not mean it should be accepted as correct.

It is blatantly obvious as to why Bosniaks are pushing for the use of the adjective Bosnian to decribe the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which also happens to be the same reason as to why they also choose to refer to their country as Bosnia, and not its full name Bosnia and Herzegovina, which also happens to be the same reason as to why they insist on calling the name of their language Bosnian and not Bosniak.

The tab on Bosnian and Herzegovian is a brief explanation of the Serb and Croat view on the issue, and as they are also 2 of the constituent people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, their POV on the issue should be included.

Thankyou.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.15.182 (talk • contribs)

Damir has his reasons for the revert, but I have other concerns about that paragraph. For the start, :I don't think it belongs to the "Bosnia (region)" article. Second, I don't think it entirely reflects the reality; first and foremost, "a Herzegovinian will not call himself/herself Bosnian" is in my experience not true. Some maybe wouldn't, but then many would. The situation is not so black and white as you'd like to present. I'm removing the info, and pointing you to the Bosnians article -- boy, that article is a good place to mess. Go figure. :-). Duja 04:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

See Damir, who would say that I'd ever revert to your version? LOL... Duja 04:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi again. I dont think you are all that right that you suggest most Herzegovinians would call themselves bosnians.

i belive it is totally the other way around.Almost every (i would say 9/10) Serb and Croat in Herzegovina would refer to themselves as a Herzegovinian, And it is just the minority Muslims(bosniaks) from Herzegovina that would call themsleves Bosnians in both a geographic sense and ethnic sense, purely for politacal motives, which i mentioned earlier.

That is due to the fact that most Bosniaks(Muslims) want to REMOVE/ AND OR HIDE all these ambiguities, with regards to what bosnian means etc, and the issue with the name of the country including Herzegovina makes it all that harder to monoploize the history of Bosnia (and Herzegovina).

I will add the whole paragraph to the bosnians article, although that article also has a slightyly pro bosniak slant to it and does not adress all issues, hopefully someone would like to take some time to make it a bit more neutral or present all viewpoints.

Thankyou. Btw my name is Stipe 211.31.15.182

I didn't suggest that most Herzegovinians would call themselves Bosnians. I merely say that your statement that no one would is inaccurate as well. The situation is, however, quite complex; identification depends on context. For example, many would probably object by being referred to fellow Bosnians as "Bosanci". On the other hand, phrase "Bosanci i Hercegovci" is simply too clumsy to be used in any non-official discourse, so most people call all residents of BiH "Bosanci" and I doubt many would be too offended when used in this context. Sigh... it all has to be complicated in our lands... Duja 16:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you register, by the way? It doesn't oblige you in any way – it just makes it easier to appropriate edits to a real person; plus, it's kind of ugly to talk to an IP number. Duja 16:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

---

sorry ive been quite busy, had partition occured maybe some of this complications wouldnt exist, and each 3 ethnic group would have been able to go on and write "their" history in a way that suits them... i wonder if things would be different--Jadran 01:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

History of Bosnia

This artical is very poor because there no mention of Turkish Croatia which was called when the Ottamans conqured the heart land of Croatia. It wasn't until around the 1887 the country changed its name to the Regional provence Bosnia. --Marbus2 5 14:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Plus this, Chetniks are put side by side with partisans as resistance forces, despite being known that Chetniks were Nazi colaborationists just as Ustashe puppet regime. This is historical revisionism of WWII, just as reducing WWII concentration camps victims number by factor of 10 and then finding number of skeleton caves all over the country that earth did not want to hide any longer. -- 188.129.64.107 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

Very strange that Bosnia pipes to the country Bosnia and Herzegovina and yet the actual region worthy of the stand-alone name gets a qualifier: (region). The Big Hoof! (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It's probably because most people still think that the country is the primary topic for "Bosnia". The last discussion about that was in 2010 at Talk:Bosnia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious content

Article includes the following material, originally added by User:77.77.216.183 and removed by several editors: User:Thomas.W, User:Widr, User:95.156.182.67, and myself, and readded by a number of IP users: User:77.238.220.126, User:217.197.142.16, User:77.77.214.68, User:77.238.216.160, User:162.212.152.103. These IP users only edit this article and Herzegovina, and have been persistent for about a month.

Bosnia ... was the country's official name during the medieval period until the Ottomans and Hapsburgs introduced the artificial division to help their handover of the colonial power from Turkey to Austria-Hungary. Thus a fable was created, according to which Bosnia is the northern region encompassing roughly 80% of the country while another eponymous region of Herzegovina was given the role of the country's southern part.

In that colonial sophistry of Divide and rule, the country was supposed to be composed of two autonomous regions: Bosnia and, separately, Herzegovina. However, Herzegovina is only one of many duchies that Bosnian feudal state was composed of; also, Herzegovina was historically never a part of the country's official name until the colonial powers decided so. In the like example, Croatia managed to get rid of its colonial name assigned to her in the same sophistry, of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia, however Bosnia did not and the colonial name is her official name still today.

This has several problems. First of all, it has zero sources (reliable or otherwise). Secondly, it is written in highly partisan language: "artificial division", "fable was created", "colonial sophistry". It seems that the IP (probably one person) will continue to reinsert this material, despite multiple named editors reverting it. --Macrakis (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 18:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Bosnia (region) → Bosnia – The currently redirect term Bosnia used to redirect to the sovereign country of Bosnia and Herzegovina but was changed quite recently. I propose to remove the "(region)" part of the name as there are no other articles that are named just "Bosnia". For arguments in bringing back the redirect to the sovereign country, my response is that referring to the compound name of the country as just "Bosnia" is like saying "England" to refer to the United Kingdom" or "Soviet Russia" to refer to the whole country of the Soviet Union. PyroFloe (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Using "Bosnia" to refer to the entire country is quite common in English [1][2][3][4]. I would assume that the vast majority of readers who search for the title "Bosnia" are looking for the country – Thjarkur (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Thjarkur, using Bosnia as a primary redirect to Bosnia and Herzegovina makes the most sense. 162 etc. (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above. It is akin to referring to the United States as America, which does redirect there, although illogical. Common usage in English creates annoying situations like this. Lazz_R 20:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose move. This is a tough one, but sources use "Bosnia" more for the country, not the region as a whole. O.N.R. ^(talk) 08:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Most people seeing the term "Bosnia" would think of the country. Even though that's not its full name, it is easily its most common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Bosnia" is more commonly used as a short-form version of the country name. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.