Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Croatia (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Remove Vladimir Prelog from the images of famous Bosnian Croats[edit]

Vladimir Prelog isn't a Bosnian Croat. His parents are from Croatia and they were only working in Sarajevo when Vladimir was born. They moved back to Croatia when Vladimir was 8, so Vladimir Prelog is not a Bosnian Croat, but a Croat born in Bosnia. Xzpx (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

      Bosnian Croats are not separate nation from Croats, thus that doesn't matter and is irrelevant146.255.150.190 (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot understand the comment left by 146.255.150.190. "are not separate nation". Firstly, Croats are not a nation but a people. Secondly, Bosnian-Croats are natives of Bosnia, Croats are natives of Croatia. So yes, they do live in two separate nations despite being the same people. ~~xzpx

Add George Chuvalo to the list and images[edit]

He is a true Croatian legend known all over the globe.

Hardly, we need better image that can fit. See size of other images in the infobox. --Wustenfuchs 10:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Atheists[edit]

There are, according to Glas Koncila a major Catholic newspapers, some 10,000 atheists among Croats of B&H. --Wustenfuchs 10:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Medieval identity of Catholic Bosnians[edit]

It cannot be proved it was "Croat": a national consciousness only formed among Catholic Bosnians in the 19th century. Hence, to write "Bosnian Croats converted to Islam" and so forth, dealing with the middle ages, is highly asynchronous, and possibly POV. Please re-phrase. Actually, there used to be a paragraph dealing with this in the article before, it appears to have been removed.

It's not POV. Those people are ancestors of present-day Croats and some sources state same so... --Wustenfuchs 13:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
And that imaginatory sources would be what? All we have are charters of Bosnian bans and Kings who explicitly mention Serbs and Serbian language. I still did not foun any mention of Croats in medieval Bosna. And when you say source, it is not edition of book X by author Y from 2005. It is supposed to be source. Ruler X proclaimed his language Croatian and ethnicity of his subjects Croatian.

--109.165.165.119 (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Matej Ninoslav

@Wusten Medieval Catholic Bosnians were not ancestors of Bosniak Muslims? Should we call them "Muslims" because they were ancestors of modern Muslims? What does the modern name Croats (borrowed by Bosnian Catholics in 1875 from the population of the Kingdom of Croatia) have to do with the medieval name? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Bosnian rulers don't mention Serbian language, they mention Croats and Serbs a few times and there are mentions of "Bošnjani", people who inhabited Bosnia. Many Serbian nationalitist are trying to prove that Tvrtko was crowned king of Serbs, Bosnia, Hum, etc... However, it's wrong, Tvrtko was crowned king of SERBIA, Bosnia, etc... Why they claim he was king of Serbs? Because his title is "kralj Srblji, Bosna, etc... However, "Srblji" simply means the Serbian lands he ruled, he became king of Srblji, Bosna, Hum, Hervat(which someone would explain "king of Croats", that's wrong , it means the Croatian lands he ruled. The fact is that most of Bosnian rulers were catholic (sometimes followers of Bosnian church) and people of Bosnia (local peasants, villagers, ie. "local folk") were mostly catholic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.60.120.72 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

@109.60.120.72 Yes, but how is this information relevant? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

A reply to your very informative message[edit]

  • Kingdom of Croatia: Well, it's logical they created their Kingdom since they lived in one called Kingdom of Croatia (earlier Littoral Croatia), you don't need a source for this.
  • High and Late Middle Ages: I quoted the source for this one.
  • Ottoman Empire: Ok, about this one. Thousedns of Cathliic fled, and I quoted the source. About 1524 persecution, the source is Malcolm, however, I have Croatian-language edition, I'll add the page, but you can find it in English-language edition easly I think.
  • Bosnian War: Again, I quoted the source. And Serbs did get the weapons from Middle East as Yugoslavia bought large amount of weapons before the embargo, and Army of Republika Srpska used this weapon. Izetbegović refused confederation idea because he considered him self president of all citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, de facto he didn't represent the Serbs and I'm aware of that.
  • Bosnian War under Demographics: I'm working on this one.
  • Literature: They are part of Bosnian Croat literature, and some of them considered themselves to be ethnic Croats.

--Wustenfuchs 18:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC) izak is a bitch

POV of Bosnian War section[edit]

Since I tagged the section as POV and user Wustenfuchs asked me to explain why I did it, I will try to do it. First, I am sorry if out of my edit summary the reason for tagging wasn't clear enough. At the time when I did this I thought it was self-evident from cited parts of sentences I put under quotes: "The first unit to oppose Serbian aggression...", "...Bosnian Croats were first to organize them selfs against the aggressor,...", "...Croats launced a counter-offensive, thus liberating Mostar...". Second, I apologize if I am wrong about the facts concerning the war and the status of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and consequential understanding of the wordings about those facts. What I am trying to say is this, if immediately since after the declaration of independence and until before the start of the war, BiH wasn't independent and thus wasn't a state per se, I am not sure if we can talk about a state to make an aggression to. Then also, "Bosnian Serb forces, supported by the Serbian government of Slobodan Milošević and the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA)" maybe couldn't then attack "the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina" (this wording was taken from the lead paragraph of Bosnian War). But, I for sure could be wrong since neither I am certain about the facts of the war nor I am certain about the then status of BiH. And moreover, I am the least certain about the correct phrases that are to be used - correct according to international law and relations. While as said, I am not sure what the appropriate wording would be in this case, if any should be used "attack" to me seems more appropriate than "aggression". Also, "Serbian" in "Serbian aggression" appears to me as not accurate enough. If Yugoslav People Army was involved, then it couldn't be that it was purely a Serbian, and Serbian only aggression. After all there was, as far as I know, Montenegro involved also and therefore maybe Montenegrins as well, so I think that plainly "Serbian" isn't precise enough in this case. We might try and somehow mention Yugoslav People Army in those sentences. As for liberation of Mostar, it goes the same: if there was no aggression, I think that then we should try and avoid such wordings as the word "liberation" is. But, as I put it before, neither I am sufficiently knowledgeable of the facts and timeline, nor I am certain about the Legalese and correct or appropriate phrases to be used. For now this much from me, I will try to research more about this. Cheers, --biblbroks (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'll briefly explain the situation (those infos are sourced also as you can see). In March 1992 citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina voted for the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina from Yugoslavia, and this descision of Bosnian people was soon accepted by Bosnian parliament, however, Radovan Karadžić and Serbs opposed this decision, you maybe heard of Karadžić's infamous speech that Bosnian independence will led Bosnian Muslims into disappearance. So, Serbs opposed independence so they wanted to implement army occupation of the country to keep peace, but Croats and Bosniaks opposed JNA's occupation of BiH. And we have a war. HOS units were founded in 1991 and were first to shoot at JNA soldiers, then HVO was founded along with Army of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in April 1992, however, HVO gained support from Croatia and was quickly organized, while ARBiH was poorely organized and lacked of weapons. And in April 1992 war started etc... Now JNA on Bosnian territory was organized as Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) so we may say Serbian army, but JNA was also Serb-dominated. Montenegrins weren't involved in Bosnian War. We may call them agressors, since Bosnia was independent state and recognized as such by the UN. So it was de facto and de iure an agression. --Wustenfuchs 13:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

erin was here Alicia was here toooooooo......

article needs cleaning up - repeating sections[edit]

Not sure what's going on, but several sections of the history are repeated after the tables in the article ... HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Croats of Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnian Croats – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Since the adjective "Bosnian" is used in English to refer to "Bosnia and Herzegovina", the overwhelming majority of reliable sources and major English-language media outlets use the term "Bosnian Croats" for Croats living in the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina, regardless whether they hail from the geographical region of Bosnia or Herzegovina. Apart from a myriad of mass media sources, this is evidenced by a simple Google Books search which yields 18,900 hits for the "Bosnian Croats" phrase. Timbouctou (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

  • This is one of those cases where I don't think the common name policy trumps the other naming criteria. "Bosnian Croats" is common because it's recognizable and natural, but "Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina" isn't really less recognizable or natural, and it's more precise, because it's avoids the pitfall of calling people of Herzegovina "Bosnian". The shorter title is more concise, while the longer is more consistent (with "Croats of Serbia", "Serbs of Croatia", etc). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Completely oppose this. The only reason why Timbouctou is requesting this move is because of the current argument on Talk:Croats#Bosnian_Croats_from_Herzegovina where he is arguing Bosnian Croats (and also Bosnian Serbs) is the common name based on it's use in mass media. His main problem of contention is this article and the article Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina because they are completely refuting his argument....if it is how he says it is then why is this article named this way? So here we are. Shameful. The funny thing is: I completely predicted this move. This is a dishonest request, one motivated by his personal views and needs. Beside the dishonesty obviously present in this request I think Joy [shallot] has already explained it. While the term Bosnian Croats (or Bosnian Serbs) may be used in mass media, Wikipedia is aspiring to be a online encyclopedia, this means it should be more specific and defining. The correct name of Croatian community within Bosnia and Herzegovina is Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina because by taking out Herzegovina from the name it implies it refers only to the Croats living in Bosnia (region), while the truth is: majority of Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina actually live in Herzegovina. If we would follow this logic then why not simply rename Bosnia and Herzegovina to Bosnia? It's also quite a common name (more common than Bosnia and Herzegovina) in mass media as well. In any case completely dishonest, disappointing and shameful move by Timbouctou. Shokatz (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the majority of Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina live in the Herzegovina part. And since "Bosnian" means "of Bosnia and Herzegovina" in English, the term "Bosnian Croats" encompasses them as well. Simply because the adjective "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" barely exists in English usage. This is only a problem if you translate the adjective's meaning into Croatian or Serbian, which employ "Bosnian" differently and use it to refer to both the country and the region. But this does not seem to be a semantic problem for pretty much anyone who has ever published an article about this particular ethnic group in English in the last 20 years, including the hundreds of documents by the UN's ICTY (which is very well informed on the distribution of ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina). Also, there is no "official" name of the group - the country's own constitution calls them just "Croats". And lastly, this "X ethnicity of Y country" format is a direct translation from native languages of the region and seems to be used only for ex-Yugoslav groups and only of English Wikipedia - it is not what such ethnic groups are for the most part called in English language, where "X adjective + Y ethnicity" is more often employed - e.g. we have articles on Croatian American and Croatian Australian, not "Croats of the United States" or "Croats of Canada". Maybe this descriptive format would be justified if we had insufficient numbers of reliable English language sources talking about them (as is the case with tiny ethnic groups such as Croats of Sweden or Croats of Slovakia) but in this particular case we have plenty of sources using the phrases "Bosnian Croat" and "Bosnian Croats". And on the other hand we have very few sources using any other format to refer to the same thing. This can hardly be ignored. P.S. Shokatz please refrain from personal atttacks and do try discussing the proposal, not the person proposing it. Timbouctou (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The difference between Croats in Canada and the US and in Bosnia and Herzegovina is that Croats in the latter case are constitutive nation, meaning Bosnia and Herzegovina is also their base country (just like Croatia), while in US and Canada they are a minority/immigrant community. I have already elaborated this on the Talk:Croats where you failed (and still do) to provide an answer to the question: how is Bosnian Croats superior to Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina. No one is denying or negating its use in mass media, the problem comes up in a encyclopedia style articles such as this, whether such terms are appropriate or not...I consider they are not and so does Wikipedia, the name of this article agrees with it. I also completely agree with Joy, WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable here in this case. And last, I made no personal attacks against you. You have only yourself to blame for embarrassing yourself in this fashion. It is more than clear this request is dishonest and fully motivated by your personal agenda on Talk:Croats, everyone can see that...you even suggested there when I mentioned these articles that then they should be renamed...and here we are. I already said in my previous comment everything I had to say on the matter. It is more than clear what your intentions are with this request. You are acting like a little child, if it can't be like you said it is then you will change it....well it doesn't work that way. Sorry. Shokatz (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Shokatz you are not really contributing to this discussion. Yes, Croats are a "constitutive nation" in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the country's constitution itself calls the group just "Croats". In other words, Bosnia and Herzegovina itself does not see any significant difference between ethnnic group of Croats of Croatia and Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina other than citizenship, and therefore if we were to go by the country's own constitution, this article would not exist at all as it would be merged into Croats. This is not about me or my "hidden agenda" of any sort - this is about the most commonly used term for the article subject used in reliable English-language sources. And "Croats of Bosnia" or "Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina" is simply not it. The proposed argument that an encyclopedia should somehow be more precise than the real world is pretty thin - the article titled Americans talks about people of the United States, it is not titled "People of the United States" to distinguish it from citizens of Americas (the continent). It is where it is because when people say "American" this is what they mean most of the time. Just like when they say "Bosnian Croat" they mean this. This is precisely why we have WP:COMMONNAME for. Timbouctou (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Comparing US with Bosnia and Herzegovina is a completely failed attempt. First US is a immigrant country as opposed to Bosnia and Herzeogvina which has a rather more complex history...as do all European countries. And second, Bosnia and Herzegovina is a country defined by its constitution as a constitutive country made up of three nations: Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs. Ridiculous comparison. And I agree, you don't have a hidden agenda...it's in plain sight what you are trying to do here. Requesting a move to suit your own POV-pushing agenda on another article is embarrassing. Shame on you. Shokatz (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, so you are against the move. We get the picture. Thanks for your input. Timbouctou (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
If you haven't noticed I made that quite clear in my first response. I am generally opposed to dishonest and POV-pushing moves such as this in any case, this one especially. Shokatz (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
What is "dishonest" about moving an article to another title? And what might my "POV" be here? Sounds to me you are the one with POV problems. Timbouctou (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
What is dishonest about it is that you are motivated not by the desire to improve this article or even to satisfy your own POV. Your only motivation is that it aligns with your argumentation on Talk:Croats. All in all it's a shameful act. I don't have a problem with either the Bosnian Croats or Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina as I have already explained on Talk:Croats. My main motivation was that Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a more descriptive and defining term, which it certainly is whether you like it or not. The only problem I have is you and your duplicitous, POV-pushing bullying. Shokatz (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, my "POV" is described at WP:COMMONNAME, as stated in the very first post of this topic. Your POV on the other hand isn't. This is a discussion, the move proposal was started to see what editors think and you voiced your opinion. You did this already. Now all you have left are personal attacks. Do you honestly think this will somehow help your case? Timbouctou (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Again, so you say. I don't see anything at WP:COMMONNAME that is definitely supporting your argument. You do realize there are exceptions to the Wiki rules, WP:COMMONNAME most specifically deals with personal names. And if you are so annoyed by my opinion why do you keep replying to me. As I said, if you think anything I said here is a personal attack report me already and stop whining. Shokatz (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
It does not deal with personal names only. At WP:COMMONNAME one of the examples listed is United Kingdom (to illustrate the fact that the article is not called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"). And I do realize there are exceptions to rules, but I have yet to see a solid argument against using the common name here. All we heard was your personal opinion about the current title being "more precise". Which could also be said for "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Timbouctou (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Guess what the opening sentence of United Kingdom says? The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Yes that is right! Also if I may be so bold and introduce you to one other Wiki policy you may not know about - WP:COMMONSENSE. Shokatz (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes so? This discussion is about article title not its opening paragraph. The two are not the same. Timbouctou (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Btw, the current version of this very article uses the terms "Bosnian Croat" and "Bosnian Croats" no less than 26 times. Timbouctou (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
It is used for practical reasons, obviously. Your main problem is you need to prove how and why Bosnian Croats is a common name that should take precedence over Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Not to mention that your motivation for request is certainly not aligned with WP:GOODFAITH. Shokatz (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
So it is practical enough to be used 26 times in article body, but it is somehow not practical enough to be used as article title? OK, I rest my case. And you still argue that it is not the commonly used term even though whoever wrote this article used the term 26 times? This is ludicrous. Timbouctou (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I never argued anything similar. You can clearly see from the start I was arguing that Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina is more suited for a encyclopedia style article. I think I was quite clear on that. You only need to read with a bit of understanding. It is you with your hard-line attitude, not willing to give in even an inch, claiming Bosnian Croats is the only valid term...for God's sake you even went so far to request a name change so it can suit your agenda. That is what I call ludicrous. Shokatz (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Well the article itself uses the term "Bosnian Croats" almost exclusively. Quite a paradox we have here don't we. It seems my "agenda" here is naming the article after the term used about the topic within the said article. What's yours? Timbouctou (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I don't have an agenda at all. I have been involved in a few hot-headed disputes in my time (where BTW I was always the first to withdraw) on Wikipedia but I've never witnessed someone going so far to request a name change for an article so it can be used as an argument on another one. All in all I don't have a problem with your argumentation at all, I do have a problem with your disruptive behavior you have shown recently. It's quite disappointing to witness something like this. Shokatz (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I agree on principle with the move rationale, but I also recognize the validity of Joy's objections. However, since we have to decide on one title, I'd rather it be the WP:COMMONNAME one, and to heck with regional sensibilities. -- Director (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Joy. While WP:COMMONNAME is a significant factor to decide a title, it is not the only one. We should also consider WP:PRECISION, and, more important, WP:POVNAME: "Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:[...] 2) Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious" (emphasis mine). "Bosnian Croats" is obviously a shorthand and a colloquialism, which has a POV component that it excludes Herzegovina. Unwieldy as it is, most our articles follow a consistent scheme in naming of BiH articles as "X of Bosnia and Herzegovina", where "Bosnian X" is usually a more common alternative, so I don't see a compelling reason to move this one. No such user (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Since "Bosnian" is used to refer to the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina, there is nothing imprecise about the term "Bosnian Croats". A reader typing in Bosnia will be redirected to the primary topic, which is Bosnia and Herzegovina. As for the alleged POV issue (ignoring the fact that there's also WP:CONCISE) - I would agree if there was an alternative - but there simply isn't. No English piece of text written by anyone and published anywhere which talks about Croats in this particular country (and there are thousands of examples) can avoid using the phrase "Bosnian Croats". Even this very article uses it pretty much exclusively. As for colloquialism argument - it simply does not stand. Per definition, colloquialism is something used in conversational or informal language but not in formal speech or formal writing. But this term is used in a myriad of formally written sources such as scholarly books and newspaper articles (again, because there is really no English-language alternative). In fact the only place where Bosnian Croats are talked about but not referred to as "Bosnian Croats" is this article's title (but not its body, which is, per your opinion, full of colloquialisms - which would be, in turn, inappropriate for an encyclopedia article by definition). There's a lot of circular logic employed here to defend a title which only Wikipedia chose to use. "Bosnian Croats" is even used by the Croatian government. Timbouctou (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Bunch of Croatian government are very well informed. About history of Finland for instance.http://www.poslovni.hr/svijet-i-regija/milanovic-bio-u-krivu-finska-je-imala-graanski-rat-234339 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.26.232 (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Again Tozwu's edit war[edit]

Please do not ignore the talk page, and please stop edit waring. Show some good faith and revert your edit, and discuss the problem that you have with this article here. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing of Croats in BiH[edit]

this line doesn't make sense: "

Ethnic cleansing within Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1990s saw the vast majority of its Croats move to what is now the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina or to Croatia.[2] "

It seems to imply that Bosnian-Croats never lived in the federation prior to ethnic cleansing undertaking? please look at this map from the Office of High Representative: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/32fiyt/ethnic_makeup_of_bosnia_and_hercegovina_before/

There were no majority of Croats (in municipalities) outside of the federation, even prior to the war which existed in RS. Therefore, you need to make it more clear that there were smaller numbers of Croats who lived outside of what today is the Federation. Also, you need to make it very clear, as you have done, that they were forced, by way of ethnic cleansing, to leave places were they were small minorities and emphasis the FACT that after the war they actually became MAJORITIES in cantons in the federation (wonder how?).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.249.35 (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)