Jump to content

Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cole1982 (talk | contribs) at 23:07, 7 November 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Former featured article candidateBosnia and Herzegovina is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 30, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted

Template:WP1.0

Dayton agreements

The Dayton agreements are a total shack: Why should Croatians and so called "Muslims" share an entity? Why should the Serbs which constitute only 30% of the population get 49% of the country? Why should the Serbs who are responsible for the genocide in Srebrenica and elsewhere get any part of Bosnia?

To prevent further conflict and war- shouldn t Bosnia be divided between Muslims and Croats and the Serbs transferred to Serbia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.141.41.194 (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the Bosnia could be easily split, the would have been no war. See pre-war maps. Dzenanz (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GDP data for Bosnia and Herzegovina

These estimates for year 2009 are made in October 2008. before financial crisis took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia and Herzegovina will face significant pressure as a result of the global financial crisis. Please don't edit that. --Gggh (talk) 8:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation of country

This pronunciation (bŏz'nē-ə-hěrt'sə-gō'vē-nə) is not in IPA. I'm not sure which language it's supposed to represent. I'm guessing it's supposed to be the English pronunciation /ˈbaz.ni.əˌheɚt.sə.goʊˈvi.nə/, but there's no "and" in there. Can anyone clear this up and put the English pronunciation and maybe some kind of chart with the Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian pronunciations? (Ejoty (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks to Kwamikagami for adding the English IPA with a source. There are two accepted pronunciations of Herzegovina though, so I added the other one with a source. Strangely, dictionary.com and merriam-webster.com don't offer any help even though they're such big names. My source confirms what I thought about the pronunciation, but there are two things I'm not sure of. In Kwamikagami's pronunciation, the second syllable in Herzegovina has the vowel /ɨ/, whereas in my source it's /ə/. This vowel need not change just because of the change in stress. I wonder if both are deemed right, and if both are used. Second, Kwamikagami has /hɜrt/ (as in "hurt") for the first syllable of Herzegovina. My source contradicts that, but neither uses IPA nor has a key for their symbols so I'm not sure if they mean it to be /hɛrt/ (with the same first vowel in "merry") or /heərt/ (with the same first vowel in "Mary") when they write "hert." I'm a Merry Mary Marry Merger kind of guy, so those two are no different to me, but exact is exact. I think we have it at least mostly right now, but it seems like there's a bit of dischord and lack of certainty in the world about the English pronunciation of this country. (Ejoty (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Would it be ok to only give the pronunciations for Herzegovina? I feel it looks rather cluttered otherwise. We don't need to tell people how to say "and", and Bosnia is quite straightforward as well. (Also, the use of both /ˈbɒzni.ə/ and /ˈbɑzni.ə/ seems arbitrary - isn't [ɑ] just an American realisation of /ɒ/?) Lfh (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republic?

Does the official name include "Republic" or not? I know this has been discussed before (and agreed on that "Republic" is not part of the official name), but can someone confirm this before changing it? Thanks.--BignBad (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

How does this citation belong to an encyclopedia aricle:

"Some think that it was a planned Austro-Hungarian takeover of the land called Herzegovina because many Croats from Croatia were settled there."

When someone who doesn't know much about Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina reads this, he would think that Croats were settled in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Austro-Hungarian government.

But I will give you some examples how this claim is ridiculous, here's the list:

  • župa (smallest administrative unit of the Catholic church) of Posušje was established in 1735.
  • župa of St.Blaž in Čapljina is first mentioned in 1599. later from that župa separated župa Gabela (1853.) and župa Čerin (1864.)
  • župa Roško Polje was established in 1758.

And the list goes on and on, I'll remove the citation from above later. Stürmkrieger (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Srebrenica genocide denial is irrelevant

There is an article on Srebrenica, where the posted comments might be relevant - appropriate links already exist to the Srebrenica page. I'm removing the genocide denial bit, as it is patently irrelevant. Boeremoer (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Destribution Map Is Wrong

The ethnic distribution map on this page is wrong. The blue section should be The Serbs (The Serbs are currently represented as Red) and The Red section shoud be The Croats (The Croats are currently represented as blue).