Jump to content

Talk:Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

controversy

User:Emir_Arven called me pathetic for adding prominent figures.

Mehmed-pasha was a Bosniak. Connecting Mehmed-pasha with Serb origin because he was born Christian is anachronism. --Emir Arven 10:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
No, not because he was born Christian, but because he was born Serbian. Isn't it logical then to count him? Calling him Bosniak would be incorrect - anachronistic --HolyRomanEmperor 20:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Stjepan II was main enemy of Serbs in 14th century. There is no proof that his mother tongue was Serbian. This is redicilous. Many Serb historians tried to forge his documents. His mother was a daughter of Hungarian king. Serbian-held territories? Are you kidding me? You should learn how to use terms in correct historical context, but I have to say that this is redicilous.--Emir Arven 10:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
His mother was Jelisaveta Nemanjic, daughter of Dragutin Nemanjic. And you said: Many Serb historians tried to forge his documents. This is POV. Could you prove this? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I think that you are not historian. Because historian doesnt base his writings on Serb propaganda (I know that you say you are not a Serb, just Orthodox, but this is too obvious). Real historian seeks the truth, put corrcet information in the articles and fight against propaganda and mythology. We could all had seen yesterday how Serb Radical Party could forge the truth. When Milosevic died, they immediately said that he was killed by international community (ICTY)?! The same thing happened in this article. When you said that Vladimir Corovic wrote that Stjepan II was Orthodox, which was false (after I checked and proved it to you), then you wrote this article and put him here. Historian?...plz...--Emir Arven 11:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Turk stop spitting bullshit, rivers Vrbas and Cetina were the border that divided Serbs and Croats, and considering Bosnia was created by part of early Serbian state becoming independent what else can he be, a Mongol ? You are a Serb or Croat as well, your ancestors just sold your people for coffee and sugar. You can change nationality every other day but fact remains you are either Serb or Croat since these are only real tribes that were present before Ottoman conquest. And the fact that you people speak Serbian language no matter how much you try to invent and rename it. So save your islamist propaganda for ISIS forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.245.221 (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Explainations

Mehmed-pasha Sokolović. Please see the talk page. The arguement still lasts, and I suggest that you remove him from the List of Serbs before removing him from here. Also, you put him on the List of Bosniaks. Understand, it can't go both ways, either leave him here; or remove him from the List. Because what you're doing here is POV-pushing. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I am aware what is your intention, but as usual you can continue to count their bloodcells and to bargain here or to read some books and give real contribution to this project.--Emir Arven 17:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It's funny that you started firing the word bloodcells the moment I used them once talking to you. You're a "fast learner" :-). It's not blood that matters. But culture, language and what they did in their life. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You also left out Ivo Andrić and Meša Selimović without explainations. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What? You are talking about Ivo Andrić? I didn leave him out. You should really learn sometimes to tell the truth.--Emir Arven 17:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Kotromanic

I wouldn't object the removal of Stephen II Kotromanić under normal circumbstances, but you put him on the List of Bosniaks - an even bigger historical concotion based on ...what Bosniaks thinl... and you won't allow him to be put in the Serbs even though Serbs consider him their ruler?

First this is not place for bargain. It is a shame that you do that.--Emir Arven 17:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not a bargain. Just get it like this: You cannot invade a country and claim that it's rightful expansion for your nation/people and then complain when your country gets invaded by saying that it's wrong. Do you understand what I mean?
As I said earlier there was explanation in that list that he was Bošnjanin (older word for Bosniaks which are ancestors of nowdays Bosniaks). Ethnicity is the matter of identification, he identified himself with Bosnia, called his people Bošnjani.--Emir Arven 17:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
That theory is indeed actual, but unproven. So, Bosnians of Islamic religion decided that their official name would be "Bosniaks" - thus they discriminated Christian Bosnians. You see, this is the root of all Bosniak nationalism - where Bosniak nationalists try to present their people as "legitimate people of Bosnia" and other nations (Croats and Serbs, respectivly) as "intruders". It reminds me of Serbian nationalists that used the numerious historical documents & accords to prove that Bosnia is historically a Serbian Land. So, the continuation between Bosniens and Bosniaks is no better than the medieval Serb Land of Bosnia - which you (and I) acuse of being propaganda. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You also said: His mother was a daughter of Hungarian king. Which shows that you didn't read the article at all. His mother was a Serbian Princess, Jelisaveta, daughter of King Stefan Dragutin.

You could conclude what I meant from my earlier comments on this topic. I meant, her mother (mother of Jelisaveta). Unfortunately I made lapsus calami and you misused it. --Emir Arven 17:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, errare humanum est. I thought that you meant that. It's OK, mate. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 20:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the charter of Stephen II of Kotroman: to have and hold to the end of the world moveless. And for that have put I (lord) ban Stefan my golden seal, to be believed, everyone to know and see the truth. And to that are IV charters..a.. two Latin and two Serbian, and all are sea-led with golden seals: two are charters in lord ban Stefan and two charters in Dubrovnik. And that is written under. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No it was not a part of his chart. But a sentence which was added at the end of the chart, by a Serb scribe from Dubrovnik. It is well known case of forgery. All four original documetns were lost. And you didnt even translate that added sentece well. It was about scripts, not languages, as you know, there is no Serb script. I just cant believe that you are capable of putting all this false information just because of spreading Serb propaganda. Real historian would never do that.--Emir Arven 17:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
A well-known case of forgery? Could you prove it? What I presented was a scanned copy of his charter (see to the lower) present at the Dubrovnik Archive - you only put some historian's quotations. Aren't you being at least a bit one-sided? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
If you want me to repeat my answer once again (I told you the same thing in the talk page of Stjepan II), I will do that, because you are ready to misuse things. Let me remind you of your weak knowledge. This is what you said:--Emir Arven 17:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
1. He never called his people Bošnjani. There is no trace for that.
2. His father, Kotroman was a German knight and his mother a Serbian Princess.
3. There is no evidence that the transcript was written by a Serbian scribe. Please bear in mind this when zou edit the page. Thanks you. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Are you kidding me? His most famous chart shows that he called his people Bošnjani all the time. It is called: "Povelja bana Stjepana II Kotromanica Dubrovcanima" from 1332. Look here. I'will put it here in old Bosnian. It starts with the words "If Bošnjanin do this or that..." People in Bosnia in that days called themselves Bosnjani. It is well known historical fact: --Emir Arven 08:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC) 2.His father was not a German knight. It was an assumption because of his name Kotroman. Some historians tried to connect his name with Germans, but it was never validated. --Emir Arven 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

3.There is. Mak Dizdar presented his research in Antologija bosanskih tekstova. --Emir Arven 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

4. Please bear in mind this when you try to spread Serb propaganda again. --Emir Arven 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

5. Due to above reasons, your articles should be reviewed. And you wanted to become an admin? --Emir Arven 17:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


    • Mak Dizdar iz the poem not historian of any kind

Chart of Stjapan II from 1332

(August 15th 1332)

Ako Bošnjanin bude duzan i pobjegne - da mu nije vjere ni ruke od gospodina Bana.
Utvrdi zakon ko je prvi bio medju Bosnom i Dubrovnikom, da zna vsaki chlovjek, koji je zakon bil: :Ako ima Dubrovcanin koju pravdu na Bošnjaninu - da ga pozove pred gospodina Bana ili pred njegova :vladaoca - roka da mu ne bude odgovoriti.
Ako Bošnjanin zapsi da nije duzan - da mu nareche priseci samoshestu, koje ljubo postavi Banj rod. :Ako bude podoban od Banova roda kto - da mu su porotnici od njegova plemena, koga mu hotenje. A toj :da se zna - da ne moze tehej pobjegnuti, a vece ne moze pred nikoga mu narechi.
A kto Dubrovcanin ubije ali posjece u Bosni ili Bošnjanin Dubrovcana - taj pravda da je pred :gospodinom Banom, a osud da grede Banu na njih.
Ako bude svadja Bošnjanina z Dubrovcaninom u Dubrovnici - da sudi knez dubrovacki i sudje, a globa :opcini.
Ako Bošnjanin uhiti Dubrovcanina za konja, a on bude ukraden ili uhushen, a pravi Dubrovcanin: "Moj :je konj vlasti" volja: "Ja sam ga kupio, ne znam od koga", volja povije od koga je kupljen, volja :priseze samoshest - cist duga da bude.
I ako Bošnjanin bude duzan, a pobjegne iz Bosne z dugom - da mu nije vjere ni ruke od gospodina :Bana. I ako Bošnjanin izme dobitak dubrovacki na vjeru, i knjiga bude u Dubrovnici, ako knez i :sudje poshlju da je knjiga prava - da je vjerovana, da plati Dubrovcaninu i bez prestavshtine.
Ako li tat ili husar uzme Dubrovchaninu u Banovu vladanju, kto se uvje - da plati Dubrovchaninu i :bez prostavshtine, a gospodinu Banu vsaki sest volova na svoju glavu - i da se ne vrate.
Ako rat bude, chesa Bog ulishi, medju Bosnom i Dubrovnikom, da gospodin Ban da rok Dubrovcanom sest :mjeseca, da si podju u Dubrovnik slobodno - na to im je vjera gospodina Bana Stjepana. A Dubrovcane :da zivu Humskom zemljom u njih' zakonu - u prvom.

You didn't need to bring it up. I already thanked you there for offering a valuable source. Just, what's the relevancy of that to the Bosnian Serbs? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Another removal

You removed Luka Vukalović, a liberator from Ottoman rule. Why? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is his contribution to humanity. --Emir Arven 17:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I explained to the low. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Emir, what in Earth's name are you doing?

You wrote in the edit summary: Nemanjići are Bosnian Serbs, nonsense?! this is really more than anachronism, this is not serious.

God knows what are you talking about... Could you explain?

You also removed the House of Njegoš totally unexplained. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what's your goal here, but please, kindly; stop pushing it. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

First, you have to learn how to use terms in correct historical context. Then you have to learn what is ethnicity, nationality and anachronism. That is not my problem. --Emir Arven 17:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you clarify what you mean, please? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Bosnian Serbs is newer date term, used by western media. For instance Slobodan Milošević is mentioned as a Serb leader or Serb war crmininal (not important for this example) or even Serbian. On the other hand Radovan Karadžić is Bosnian Serb war criminal, and Mile Babić Croatian Serb war criminal. The point is that Serbs are Serbs, but western medias used that term to locate them. As you know Serbs in Bosnia never called themselves Bosnian Serbs, just Serbs. Sometimes it is even insult for them.--Emir Arven 17:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
An insult? Please, read all pre-1939 documents. All Bosnian Serbs were simply called Bosniaks. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Contradiciton. Btw, during Bosnian War Serbs changed every possible name that had smth to do with Bosnia. For instance, they changed the names of all those towns that had word Bosnian in its name: Bosanski Samac (Bosnian Samac) was changed to Srpski Samac (Serb Samac). Bosanski Brod to Srpski Brod, Bosanska Kostajnica to Serb Kostajnica etc...I can give you many other examples...--Emir Arven 18:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
My friend, I think that your problem is that you cannot let it go (the war). Anyway, what does that have to do with this? --HolyRomanEmperor 21:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Please please please, first of all Jelisaveta was NOT tvrtkos mother but his grandmother so stop falsifyin history in typical serb megalomaniac fashion, second of all tvrtko makes it CLEAR during his coronation which took place in Bosnia that he is GOING THERE to se the land of Serbs (Namely raska region) and thus it means that he is not in a serbian land namely Bosnia, he IS GOING THERE to se the land of his forefathers and noty parents since as i wrote his GRANDMOTHER was a serb. He does not write "Srbima" that is a blatant lie, he writes "srblijem", something he removed from his title and added raska. All of mentions except only one which has been falsly used by serb extremists to claim that Bosniaks/Bosnjani are serbs clearly state that the people of Bosnia are called Bosnjani/Bosnjaks i can add many documents to support this historic fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.60.113 (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Emir's part

1. Ivo Andrić - nah, it couldn't upload him. You removed everyone else, so I asumed that you removed 'im too. Sorry, ol' chump. Errare humanum est.

2. You didn't explain why you removed the House of Njegoš from the article. Nor why did you wrote this senceless: Nemanjići are Bosnian Serbs, nonsense?! this is really more than anachronism, this is not serious. in the edit summary. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

3. Luka Vukalovich was a prominent individual. He fought for the Bosnian people and Bosnia-Herzegovina; he eventually fought for a better status of the majority of Bosnia's people. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

4. You hadn't commented your removal of Meša Selimović from the article either. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

5. Bosnian Ban/Herzog Stephen II of Kotroman

Stephen II of Kotroman

Let's cross again: here's a scanned copy of the Bosnian ruler's charter:

Which when translated from the Serbian or Croatian Slavic language means:

to have and hold to the end of the world moveless. And for that
have put I (lord) ban Stefan my golden seal, to
be believed, everyone to know and see the truth. And to that are IV
charters..a.. two Latin and two Serbian, and all are sea-
led with golden seals: two are charters in lord ban
Stefan and two charters in Dubrovnik. And that is written under

Next to that, we know with certainity that his mother was a Serbian Princess - Jelisaveta Nemanjic.

You mentioned that you put Stephen II Kotromanic on the List of Bosniaks because Bosniaks learn about him and because what Bosniaks think. By know, only Serbs have made the most thurrow researches into his life and in the Serbian historiography he is considered a Serbian ruler. And yet you placed him at the List of Bosniaks. You can't declare wars and say wars are when someone declares on you.

You also put a charter showing that he called his people Bosnians (according to a theory, Bosniak ancestors). So what if he ruled them? He ruled also the Orthodox Serbs, who could be found in the eastern portions of his realm; and who formed the majority in the Hum (Bosnian coastline).

Also, a source states that he was Orthodox Christian (the Serbian Orthodox Church being the only autocephalous Orthodox Christian Church present there), but you have denied that source based on several arguements, so I am going to acknowladge you on this one. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Tvrtko

Well, Tvrtko's great-grandfather was King of Srem, Serbs, Rascia, Zeta, Travunia, Dalmatia and Zahumlje Stefan Dragutin of the House of Nemanja. This family link was very important to Tvrtko, because it allowed him to inherit the Serbian throne.

Tvrtko had formed a special genealogy between 1375 and 1377: A Stefan kralj, brat Milutina kralja, Uroša drugog, koji Srem držaše, sa svojom supružnicom Katalinom, ćerkom ugarskog kralja Vladislava, rodi Urošicu i Jelisavetu. I Jelisaveta rodi tri sina: Stefana bosanskog bana, Ninosava i Vladislava. I Vladislav rodi Tvrtka bana i Vukića.

In the English language: And Stephen the King, brother of Milutin the King, Uroš II, which Srem held, with his wife Cathlyne, daughter of the hungarian King Vladislav, had Urošica and Jelisaveta. And Jelisaveta had three sons: Stephen, the Bosnian Ban, Ninoslav and Vladislav. And Vladislav had Tvrtko the Ban and Vukić.

His signatory declaration was: Po milosti božijoj kralj Srbljem, Bosni i Pomorju i Zapadnim stranama

In English language: By the mercy of God King of Serbs, Bosnia and the Seaside and the Western lands.

And finally, here's Tvrtko's edict to the Republic of Dubrovnik itself, so that no further confusions are yielded:

File:Tvrtko.jpg

Here's another exerpt of Tvrtko's statements: Takođe i meni, svojemu rabu, za milost svojega božanstva darova procvetati mi mladici bogosadnoj u rodu mojem i udostoji me dvostrukim vencem da oboja vladičastva upravljam, prvo od isprva u bogodarovanoj nam zemlji Bosni, a potom - kad me je gospod bog udostojio naslediti presto mojih praroditelja, gospode srpske, jer ti behu moji praroditelji u zemaljskom carstvu carstvovali i na nebesno carstvo preselili se - vidim ja zemlju praroditelja mojih posle njih ostavljenu i ne imajući svojega pastira. I idoh u srpsku zemlju, želeći i hoteći ukrepiti presto roditelja mojih. I tamo otišavši venčan bih bogom darovanim vencem na kraljevstvo praroditelja mojih, da budem u Hristu Isusu blagoverni i bogom postavljeni Stefan, kralj Srbima i Bosni i Pomoriju i Zapadnim stranama.

In the English language: Also me too, my slave (correct translation: God's servant) , for the mercy of my divinity giftedth me with divinity youth implanted in kin mine and giveth me with the double crown to both realms rule, first from the first in the God-given land of Bosnia, and then - when Lord God bestowed me the heritage over the throne of my forefathers, Serbian Lords, because those were my forefathers in the Earthal Empire reigned and to the Kingdom of Heaven crossed - I see the land of the forefathers of mine after them lefted and not having their own shepherd. And I went to the Serbian Land, wishing and willing to acceed the throne of my forefathers. And there leftedth I crowned was by the God-given Crown of the Kingdom of my forefathers, to be in Jesus Christ's name faithful and God-imlaced Stephen, King of Serbs and Bosnia and the Seaside and the Western Lands.

In the middle of the edict could be seen: родитеља мојих господе српске or in the English language: My parents Serbian Lords.

At the bottom of the edict can be seen: Краљ Срба or King of Serbs in the English language.

Mehmed-pasha Sokolovich

This arguement has become long overstretched and needs no more explaination than present on Talk:Mehmed-paša_Sokolović.


I think that, if his brother was the Patriarch of The Serbian Orthodox Church , it's pretty clear that the pasha was of Serbian birth ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArkhiTekton (talk • contribs) 18:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Disputed section

Several names noted in the section are actual at least of dual nationality such as Ivo Andric and Emir Kusturica. There should at least be a note that clarifies this. Djindjic is noted as a revolutionary and as much as I can maybe agree with that it sounds POV. For few others it is questionable how significant is their relation to this ethnic group, such as that oscar winner who's father was from a town in Bosnia. It looks like counting blood cells. And there is a dubios statement about Njegos dynasty that needs citation --Dado 19:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why is Djindjich's Democratic Revolution is seen POV. If he didn't exist, there would've been another Srebrenica massacre who knows where, Kosovo, Vojvodina... or even Belgrade perhaps? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ivo Andrić is by all means an ethnic Croat, but he changed his nationality openly, like can be seen in his curriculum vittae kept at the University of Prishtina (Serb). --HolyRomanEmperor 20:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Emir Kusturica is by all means a Serb. He always kept saying that and, appearently, his father was an Islamic Serb. Recently, Emir has converted to Serbian Orthodox Christianity accepting the name Nemanja, and said that his family was Islamic for 250 years only to survive the Ottoman onslought and that it's time to return to the old faith. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

We could put a note saying that Ivo Andrich was an ethnic Croat, but I consider that the main subject are the Bosnian Serbs here, and his article (and the presence on the List of Croats) is more than sufficient, I think. However, on Emir's part; I see it pointless to note a note. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
On Karl Malden; well Karl Malden is an artificial name, and his name's still Mladen Sekulović, and he's and Orthodox Christian Serb, so I don't think that it's disambiguitive. You should than argue Mila Jovovich (Serbian origin) or John Malkovich (Croatian origin) - but that's far too heavy. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Medieval figures

I think that I have already given enough arguements to them. Naturally, I would leave them from the list, but I saw similiar notions, Dado, at the List of Bosniaks; so I thought that I could apply the same logic. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Republika Srpska - Serbian Republic

I heard on the trial BiH vs SCG that they use this phrasing, so I changed it. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Mesha Selimovich

Now, I think that the removal/controversy over this writer is unnecessary. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Territorial distribution

Due to the serbian warfare in Bosnia between 1992-1995 serbs are today the territorially most widespread nation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is POV. Serbs formed majority on 53.3% of Bosnia and Herzegovina before the war. After the war, they comprised majority on 49% of BiH's soil. Ofcourse, many have return to the Una-Sana region, but it's still only a slight increase, and it's POV anyway. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

House of Petrovich-Njegosh

The House of Njegosh is originally from Bosnia, from where they moved to Herzegovina and lived in Drobnjak, below the Njegosh Mountain. From there they moved to the Old Montenegro, to the Katun Nachy (Katun Province), and settled in the village of Njeguši. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Remaining stuff

The names Bosnian and Herzegovinian were removed unexplained. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

and...

The addition of "Serb" to the Herzegovinian clans. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Zoran Djindjic a Bosnian Serb?

Zoran Djindjic was born in Bosnia, but moved to Serbia at an early age (at least so I`ve heard). As far a I know, his father was a member of the Yugoslav Army. I`ve read somewhere, that his family originally comes from the South of Serbia. Does your birthplace define a special connection to the country? I mean, if I were Norwegian but born in Africa, would I call myself African if I moved back to Norway at the age of 3? Well, as I am not an expert on the whole subject, could someone give a adequate commentary? Thanks.

Yes, birthplace does define connection to that country. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 12:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
His father was probably posted all over. If his family didn't have history there, then he shouldn't be classed as a Bosnian Serb even though he was born there. I would include him in the list though...--estavisti 15:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

POV

I see that Bosniak nationalists did not missed to post their POV about Serbs ("innocent Bosniaks persecuted by evil Serbs"), but why they did not wrote anything in Bosniaks article about Bosniak Ustašas from WW2 (Handžar division, etc.) who slaughtered many Serbs? Double standards of course... PANONIAN (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Serb Republic

Firstly, as a native speaker of Serbian and English, it strikes me as utterly idiotic that anyone can deny that Republika Srpska means "Serb Republic". Not only is that the correct translation, but it is widely used by magazines sucha as The Economist (one of the major weeklies of the English speaking world, with a circulation of about 900,000 AFAIK). Also, Googling "Serb Republic" gets more than a million hits. So I really can't see what Emir's problem is...--estavisti 15:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Constitution of Republika Srpska as well as Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in English, it is wrong. [1]. Republika Srpska is the term used in English, because this entity was never recognized as a state, it was formed and based on genocide. --Emir Arven 16:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Regardless = non-notable as the latter. It is verifiability that matters - and the "Serb Republic" is more notable. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no Ivo Andric mentioned!!! --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not speak nonsence! Republika Srpska was based on no genocide, i can see from your discussions , that you are either a Bosniak or a Croat nationalist. Republika Srpska was proclaimed to protect constitutional rights of Serbian people in bosnia, who did not want to seccede from Yugoslavia like the other two enteties who ignored Serbian rights on self-proclamation. Annd btw.... this article since it is in English, should be renamed to " REPUBLIC OF SRPSKA" - not "Republika Srpska" , that is Serbian. (Правичност (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC))

What's the source for "REPUBLIC OF SRPSKA"? YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

False information

The article is full of false historical information, disputed names, unsourced parts, and never verified terms about the war in Bosnia. --Emir Arven 22:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

For instance: The Government of BiH declared independence anyway - which was not accepted by the federal government of Yugoslavia...What federal government? Yugoslavia stoped to exist much earlier when Slovenia declared independence. --Emir Arven 22:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Very inventive view... YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

POV

Just put POV tag until all sides agree. Kruško Mortale 13:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Few things

1) Ljudevit Posavski. There is no source that he run to the Serbian ruler in western Bosnia, and not to place Serb (source of the river in old-croatian), nor that there was a Serbian state which included western Bosnia.

Yes there is - the Royal Frankish Annals. --PaxEquilibrium 15:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you read those? Please be kind and qoute mention of the serbian state in western bosnia... (and not the place called srb=which is equivalent to the well in old-croatian:), if it would be called by nation of serbs it would be in plural ergo srbi...).

--Ceha 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

2)Časlav included just eastern and central Bosnia in its state. Why should be hidden that western and northern Croatia was part of Croatia at that time?

No; the whole geographical Bosnia was included in his state. --PaxEquilibrium 15:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Early medieval Bosnia included only teritories between Vrbas and Drina south of todays town of Maglaj (so excluding kingdoms of Soli and Usora). Una was in the middle of Croatian state, not it's border. So it is not whole of today's Bosnia, but rather just eastern and central part.

--Ceha 20:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

3)At the begining of the war Serb made 31.4% of Bosnian population (see bosnian census)

A number declared as Yugoslavs. ---PaxEquilibrium 15:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
And you know which ones of them did it? Bravo! Can you tell me am I going to win the lotery also?:)

--Ceha 20:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


4)Croatian war operations in western Bosnia came with authority of President Tudjman, and Croatian command. It also came with cooperation of Gouverment of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Not at first. At first they were on self-initiative of Ante Gotovina; President Tudjman later authorized it to save Gotovina's but. With cooperation only in 1995; especially not in 1993-1994. --PaxEquilibrium 15:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Before Oluja started Croat forces were present in western Bosnia(Glamoć, Grahovo) in agreement with Bosnian forces (Washington agreement of 1994). Your claim is ... amateristic:) and unvalidated

--Ceha 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

5)Define ethnic cleansing. Serbs in so called Krajina weren't exiled from their homes by Croatian army, but they run of themselves. Do you have the data that there were 250 000 of people?

250,000 is stated both by the UN and the ICTY. Serbs in so called Krajina weren't exiled from their homes by Croatian army, but they run of themselves. Please re-read that which You wrote... LOL :D --PaxEquilibrium 15:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Well isn't it a difference when somebody throws you out of your home(things which krajina serbs done to non-serbian population) and when you run from it because of rumors what will happen when army runs out of your village?

--Ceha 20:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


6)Western Bosnia hadn't secided in 1995 but in 1993

In 1995 it declared full independence. --PaxEquilibrium 15:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure? Is there some source for that?

--Ceha 20:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


Othervise, article is higly POV, and should be cleansed of things which could not be proven or there is insuficiall data for it. Ceha 18:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Fix it then and be bold. --PaxEquilibrium 15:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't have time for it. And I surely wouldn't like to create "shitty" article.

--Ceha 20:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes

Mehmed-pasa was a BOSNIAC OTRHODOX that covnerted to Islam not a Serb. Not every orthodox is Serb you know. Husein-kapetan was a BOSNIAC hero not Serbian. Kulenovic wasn´t Serb, Kusturica is and Selimovic could be. Andric was a Serb probobly.

The Montenegrian House of Petrovic were as you say MONTENEGRIANS whata re they doing on the Bosnian Serb page? Same thing for the Montenegrian Arhbishop. And that map doesn´t show the real deal since there is just a little Serbs in Una-Sana canton becuse when it was liberated they fled with the chetniks becuse they had been on their side during the war and feered revenge.

Man Serbs stop annexing everyting that goes to rhe orthodox churh or once did, and off course all of the Bosniac writers that some time decleraid as Serbs ´couse they didn´t have the rightto be Bosniacs! Izetbegovic did it to are you gonna put him on the list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.217.80.225 (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Explanation

Please stop reverting common knowledge facts just because you disagree with them. If you have any sources to contradict the article as it stands, then produce them. I returned the map, as despite the ethnic cleansing ("liberation") of Serbs from those areas, they have returned since the war. finally, I would request that you try to control your passions and refrain from personal insults based on nationality. --Еstavisti 15:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Name

The Name section currently reads:

"The Serbs are one of the rare Slavic nations who kept their old names that they had in the old Slavonic motherland. Beside the Serbs, only the Croats kept their old name. The other Slavic nations got their names after the migration from the old Slavonic motherland. According to some historians and slavists, like Serbian historian and linguist Vuk Stefanović Karadžić, Slovak historian and slavist Pavel Jozef Šafárik and Czech slavist Josef Dobrovský, all the Slavs in the beginning called themselves the Serbs."

1. I suppose the Sorbs in Germany also kept this name. They call themselves serby.

2. I know it is widely accepted that Serbian is a very ancient name for Slavs, but is it the original name? I would like a source for that.

3. The old Slavonic motherland is very interesting, but where was it and did it exist? Source please.

4. How did the Croats keep "their old name" if "all the Slavs in the beginning called themselves the Serbs"? --Sasper 23:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re 4.: ″Croats" is not the name this nation uses themselves, they use "Hrvati" instead. Now if you know it was common for S to transform into H in various Indoeuropean languages, and especially B into V (Greek B, for example, is pronounced very much like V) then you can easily see how Hrv is very much like Srb (Serbs call themselves "Srbi"). --Darko Maksimović (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Biologically Slavs have many sources, but a common linguistic motherland did exist, of course. How could it not? YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Kotor

Kotor mentioned here together with Desnik here, city in medieval Bosnia is not Kotor that is in Montenegro today. That city was called Katera and most historians presume it is situated in village of Kotorac near Sarajevo, muncipal of Istočna Ilidža.

Bosnian Serbs

Bosnian Serbs[1] are one of the three constitutive nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

This in not true. Bosnian Serbs are NOT one of the three constitutive nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbs are.

Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Podsjećajući se na Osnovna načela usaglašena u Ženevi 8. 9. 1995. godine i u Njujorku 26. 9. 1995. godine, Bošnjaci, Hrvati i Srbi, kao konstitutivni narodi (u zajednici s ostalima), i gra-đani Bosne i Hercegovine ovim utvrđuju Ustav Bosne i Hercegovine:


There is no Bosnian Serbs just Serbs. Bosnian Serbs is just a term from USA and EU.

188.246.80.29 (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources on Emir Kusturica's ethnicity

[Kusturica says:] "My father was an atheist and he always described himself as a Serb. OK, maybe we were Muslim for 250 years, but we were Orthodox before that and deep down we were always Serbs, religion cannot change that. We only became Muslims to survive the Turks."
[Kusturica says:] "...jer ja sam Srbin ne samo po rođenju, po mom ocu, nego i po odluci." Translation from Serbian: "...because I am a Serb not only by birth, through my father, but also by my decision."
Later, in 2005, after the construction of his village Küstendorf, he got baptised Serbian Orthodox, under the name Emir Nemanja Kusturica.
In May of 2005, Kusturica was baptized in a Serbian Orthodox church, taking up the Serbian Christian name Nemanja. It was a very personal gesture to re-affirm his Serbian roots.
[Kusturica says:] "I have seen a strong emotive reaction, I saw a lot of rage in the Serbian people against the irrational decision of the West to remove Kosovo from us, a sort of new military occupation... But if I'm reproached to have the “myth of Kosovo” I am obliged to answer that yes, each one has right to his mythology, each people especially. And do the Serb people have the prototype of this extraordinary culture, of this single medieval painting in the world, of writers like Ivo Andrić and Milos Crnjavski. Why somebody would have the myth of Brad Pitt and we could not, us, have this myth of Kosovo where was born our history?"
World famous Bosnia-Serbian director Emir Kusturica held a press conference at his hotel Sunday morning...

Etc. Vladimir (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

He came from Bosniak roots and chose to be Serbian. It's the same exact shit with Andric who was of Croat roots and chose to be Serbian. Stop ignoring this. You know the controversy and you know exactly what you're doing with this nonsense. Leave it as 2x4 or pick someone whose ethnicity is not disputed. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Producer, first, could you please stop talking dirty, it´s completely unecessary. Second, we actually don´t know for sure the inclusion criteriums, ok? We can debate them obviously. Are the criteriums blood consaguinity? Or, should we rather respect peoples choice, whatever their blood is formed of? See the point? FkpCascais (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Profanity is permitted Fkp, deal with it. Their ethnicity is disputed that's why they aren't and shouldn't be there. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't draw a parallel between Andric and Kusturica here. Kusturica actually states that his roots are Serbian (see above), and he should know the best. Andric wrote in Serbian (Ekavian) and was very close to Serbia, but I think he did not explicitely state that he is a Serb, like Kusturica did. Vladimir (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Andric identified with Serb nationalism. So yes, a parallel can be drawn. There are plenty of other people to add whose ethnicity is not disputed and you pick Kusturica. You're ignoring the whole picture and viewing only what you wish as the article itself states that he is of Bosniak descent. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 21:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
@Vladimir, you provided sources and enough evidence to defend your point. Thank you. I restored him in the infobox. Obviously that we are no ones to deny someone who he wants to be. If Kusturica wants (and officially states) to be Serb, who is some wiki editor to count his cromosomes and fight against it? You proved your point and sources fully suport you.
@producer, I asked you (I didn´t "demanded" to) for you to avoid using profanities. What you said about being allowed is relative. This is an online encyclopedia (actually the biggest one), so it would be expected for users and editors to be at least capable and minimally intelligent to avoid using them. You use it with the clear intention of being abusively provocative in a already sensitive area. You can continue, obviously, but it is a minus for no one else but you.
Fkp, please stop following me around and the constant preaching. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 21:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Where did I followed you? PS: Stop edit warring, your view is just not supported, Vladimir provided a number of sources. And btw, this article is the next after Serbs in Croatia, so if you think that you can do whatever with this article and no one can edit it, you are wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
And this is the only warning you´ll receve for changing or removing part of my posts as you did just earlier here. FkpCascais (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, somehow I was pessimistic about persuading two Serbian editors about an individual's disputed ethnicity in the "Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina" article. Silly me. Don't try to make this about the sources because you know it isn't. Plenty of sources say that he is a Bosniak or of Bosniak origin:

"which won Emir Kusturica, a Bosnian Muslim,"

— Contemporary world cinema: Europe, the Middle East, East Asia and South Asia, Edinburgh University Press

"Born in 1955 to a Muslim family in Sarajevo"

— An accented cinema: exilic and diasporic filmmaking, Princeton University Press

"Kusturica—a Bosnian Muslim filmmaker from Sarajevo"

— Screenwriting for a global market, University of California Press

"HE [Kusturica] is a [...] a Slav of Muslim origin"

— Conversations: Emir Kusturica; A Bosnian Movie Maker Laments The Death of the Yugoslav Nation, New York Times

-- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 21:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

But having Bosniak origin doesn´t exclude him from being Bosnian Serb. Why it should? FkpCascais (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
... and you pick Kusturica. Emir Kusturica is a world-famous (or at least Europe-famous) person from Bosnia and Herzegovina who declares himself a Serb. It wouldn't be fair to omit him in this selection. And that's all. Vladimir (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion, from an uninvolved editor

Hi; I came in response to the request for a third opinion.
We should rely on people's own declarations of ethnicity rather than on applying our own labels. (Also; a religious conversion is not exactly a change of ethnicity). However, the last thing we need is a controversial example in an infobox - it will just encourage more long-term drama and occasional bouts of edit-warring. Maybe we could pick an uncontroversial example instead, then we can all go somewhere else and spend our time making improvements to other wikipedia articles..? bobrayner (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

But Bobrayner, there is nothing controversial about Kusturica. It was only that user (blocked btw) that was making this entire dilema. He was included before, that user came and removed him, and has been edit warring any reposition of him. Kusturica itself have been clearly stating to belong to this category, as showed in the sources brought by VVVladimir. Serb from Bosnia, or Bosniak declaring Serb, is basically that. I´m only saying this because your answer is a bit ambiguos: you say we should respect people´s statements, but next you say to forget this and pick another one... I mean, we would pick another, no problem, but the case is that Kusturica is just too notable, and hardly replaceble... FkpCascais (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Fkp purposely paints a false picture. The controversial figure Kusturica was included by vlad with no discussion whatsoever on April 14 yet he makes it appear that Kusturica stood the test of time and was accepted by all editors. Again Fkp ignores the sources that I provided that support and that shows this is not a cut-and-dried case. If Kusturica is "too notable" then what does that make Karadžić and Mladić? -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's the point here, notability. Bobrayner, you made an excellent observation stating that we should rely on people's own declarations of ethnicity rather than on applying our own labels. Regarding your question, I think that the contents of articles should reflect relevant and verifiable facts, rather than resulting from a fear that some wiki user would instigate a long-term drama and occasional bouts of edit-warring if such a fact was included in an article.
N.B. "Bosnian Muslim" denotes a person from Bosnia of Islamic religion. "Bosniak" denotes an ethnicity. The fact is that most of the Bosnian Muslims declare themselves Bosniaks, and that all of the Bosniaks are Muslims (at least nominally, as there are also atheists). Still these two terms cannot be fully equated, as is often done. Specifically, the religious category of "Bosnian Muslim" does not exclude the ethnic category of "Serb". Vladimir (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense, the terms are interchangeable. Vlad wishes to separate "Bosnian Muslim" and "Bosniak" when in reality they are, and refer to, the same ethnic group with the latter being the preferred term. "Bosnian Muslim" is by no means simply a "religious category". -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, you can shout "nonsense" a thousand times, but it's still sense. Where is written the axiom that all Bosnian Muslims automatically belong to the ethnic group of Bosniaks? What authority has ordered that all Bosnian Muslims must ethnically be Bosniaks and may not be Serbs? You assume some "wish" on my part, while I only state obvious facts. Anyway, I wrote that N.B. only as a side note, and regarding Kusturica's ethnicity, see Bobrayner's comment: We should rely on people's own declarations of ethnicity rather than on applying our own labels. Vladimir (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
They are synonyms and are used interchangeably as they refer to the same people. The difference between Bosniak and Bosnian Muslim is nothing more than a name change done in 1993.
He's of Bosniak descent. No one is applying their own label. To present a partial side of Kusturica's ethnicity, the side you favour, and to omit the other, as you have with this infobox, is POV.-- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
See above Kusturica's own declarations of his ethnicity and his origin. Insisting, despite of that, that he is not a Serb, is POV. He indeed belongs to the infobox.
Apart from that, Kusturica's account of how his father (a Bosnian Muslim) described himself as a Serb, contradicts the assumption that "Bosnian Muslim" automatically and invariably translates to "Bosniak". Vladimir (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
No insisting that he is only a Serb, again as you have done in the infobox, and ignoring his Bosniak descent is POV.
Again numerous sources say he is of Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) descent and this is not limited to his father (who was a communist and not a religious man). "Bosniak" and "Bosnian Muslim" are the same ethnic group simply different terms. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 11:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
So, according to you, he is something like Serb+Bosniak, which prohibits him from being included in an infobox with other notable Serbs, despite his own declarations that he is a Serb. So "poor" Kusturica does not belong anywhere, when ethnicity is a criterium for the inclusion? Vladimir (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it would be POV to represent him purely as a Serb as you have with this infobox and it would be POV to represent him purely as a Bosniak in the Bosniak infobox. His ethnicity is mixed: he declares himself a Serb but is of Bosniak descent. According to you his Bosniak descent accounts for nothing. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 14:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
And to what account his own declarations that he is a Serb? BTW, his inclusion in the infobox is by no means a negation of whatever descent he might be of, but purely results from the fact that he declares himself a Serb. Vladimir (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Why do his declarations take preference? In effect it is a negation because you're presenting a partial side of his ethnicity as a whole. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 14:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to explain that a person's own declaration of their ethnicity takes preference over whatever someone else might think that the person's ethnicity should be? Vladimir (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
According to whom? This is an encyclopedia which strives for NPOV. This isn't about what "someone else might think that the person's ethnicity". His descent is one thing (Bosniak) and his declaration is another (Serb). To solely represent one of those would be POV. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 14:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
You asked third opinion and you got it: We should rely on people's own declarations of ethnicity rather than on applying our own labels. He declares himself a Serb, and, moreover, declares that he is of Serb descent. His ethnicity as a whole is Serb. One should not apply the label "Bosniak" or any other on him. And that's it. Vladimir (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
No one here is applying their own label. We are going by what sources say. He's of Bosniak or Bosnian Muslim descent (again the terms refer to the same ethnic group). That is what the sources say and that is indisputable. His ethnicity is most certainly not "as a whole Serb." That is incredibly chauvinistic. Stop insisting on it having to be one or the other. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 15:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Refrain from nonsensical personal attacks like "incredibly chauvinistic". Vladimir (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox problem

Why is Boris Tadić out? And why are Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić out? Ok, I can understand, Karadžić is Montenegrin-born Serb, but what about Mladić and Tadić?--Wustenfuchs 17:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

We should make here a similar debate as on Talk:Serbs of Croatia. FkpCascais (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Wustenfuchs, in relation to the second two, it's because nobody else except you agrees to putting war criminals and perpetrators of genocide in the infoboxes of representatives of a nation. You had the same argument on several pages already. Fainites barleyscribs 21:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Technically, Mladic is indicted. I´m not defending him, I just find that unecessarily using such inflamed desriptions is not much productive, neither correct. FkpCascais (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
OK. Fair enough. I wasn't so much just referring to these two as to the fact that Wustenfuchs has run this argument on several talkpages now - with no takers. There's no policy or guideline against it. Just no consensus. Fainites barleyscribs 22:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I did accepted to exclude the polemical ones mostly as a good-will, facilitating atitude, despite the clear fact in my view some of these "polemical ones" definitely marked the history of the people they belong to, and are definitely notable way enough to be included. I hope this atitude of mine is noted and understood, but I doubt all participats see it... :(
Regarding my proposal to have a similar debate as in Talk:Serbs of Croatia, would you agree and suport the idea? FkpCascais (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Sure - but I thought you guys were not far off agreement here anyway.Fainites barleyscribs 23:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I´ll post soon my proposals for inclusion, and others could/should do as well. FkpCascais (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Good point, Fainites. As for Boris Tadić, he is marginally, or if I may say accidentally, connected to B-H. From the article on him: His parents were often moving between various cities and had moved to Sarajevo from Paris, where they were pursuing their doctoral studies, only a few days prior to his birth. The Tadić family moved to Belgrade when Boris was three years old, and his father got a job at the newspaper Liberation.[9][10] Vladimir (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
And Vladimir, he is born in Bosnia and Herzegovina, right? So that makes him Bosnian Serb. And he is president of Serbia and popular person in English-speaking world, we see that rarely here in Bosnia and Herzegovina. From all those persons, I think that only Boris Tadić and Gavrilo Princip are well-known in English-speaking World. You can say what you want, but he is Bosnian Serb, and most notable one. You making mistake for expeling him. My oppinion.--Wustenfuchs 16:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
What is it suggested he is instead? His article says The Tadić are descendants of the Serb clan of Old Herzegovina in Piva (now part of Montenegro). So he's Serb by ethnicity from his fathers side and born in BH. Is it suggested he's a Montenegran or something?Fainites barleyscribs 21:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
He is only "technically" Bosnian Serb, born in time when it was all Yugoslavia. The problem is that beside "technically", he is "accidentally" born there (like sons of diplomats when born in countries where their parents are deployed). He is not at all representative of Bosnian Serbs, neither he ever considered himself to be one, that is why would be at least strange to have him placed here... FkpCascais (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Boris Tadić should not be included. I think that we should add 3 more people, so that we could have 12, just like on the article Serbs of Croatia. Mm.srb (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think 9 is OK. Checking articles on ethnic groups of similar or even greater population, it turns out that most of them have 9 or less persons in the infobox. Not that this is a rule of any kind, but let's not be overenthusiastic about numbers :) Vladimir (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The only thing about 12 is that it makes it that much easier for everybody to have their favourites included.Fainites barleyscribs 15:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. I just don't want it to look that Serbs are boastful or something, as compared to others :) Vladimir (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
After the war the foreign overlords in Bosnia made new money for bosnia and herzegovina. It was split - paper money designs were different for republika srpska and the federation. Perhaps some people on the paper money are good ideas. 50p-Branko Ćopić [2] , 1m-Ivo Andrić [3] , 5m- Meša Selimović (the only guy on both bills) [4] , 10m-Aleksa Šantić [5], 20m-Filip Višnjić [6], 50m-Jovan Dučić [7], 100m-Petar Kočić [8]. We can also see Petar Kocic on many bills during R.S.'s wartime paper money - [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] . So these are good choices, especially Ivo Andric. While I see that some people do not want to include andric, I think it would not hurt because many bosniaks do not identify with him. Afterall, there has to be a good reason why they put Andric on the 1 mark bill for r.s. and not on the federation's 1 mark bill. Mr. Dodik is also on the list. I am not fond of him. I think it's not fair to put him on there and leave other serbian politicians from bosnia out. We should not have biase towards any current day politicians. Kusturica might be questionable too. I question how truthful he is about his roots. Perhaps he only embraces them to be liked by the serbs - you know, a guy who loves to be loved. I don't know. I hope this little info blip from me helps and I strongly urge that we consider and include people who have been on the bills - it appears that some are listed already, but we really need to have others, especially Branko Kocic, considering that he has been on so many different bills. (LAz17 (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)).
You shouldn't so lightly accuse people of lying about their roots. Who's Branko Kocic? :lol: Vladimir (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, Petar Kocic was a great writer, but we already have three men of literature (Visnjic, Milutinovic, Ducic). Wouldn't it be a bit unbalanced (occupation-wise) to have four? Vladimir (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Not all the poets were only poets. Kocic was a politician, and it's for sure a better option to pick him over Dodik.
On this page, Croats, I see Andric listed. I think there is no reason for us to not include him if they are including him. If one can why can't the other. If none do then I guess there is some logic. (LAz17 (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)).
Here we have it, [15] , what more proof do we need than his official documents that say that he's a serb? (LAz17 (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)).
He can be included in both infoboxes. Vladimir (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Good good, that was what I was thinking. Both or none - not only one side as is the current situation. I'll give it a bit time to see if anyone else has something to add, to have a reason for or against this. I certainly would like to see some more people discussing this. (LAz17 (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)).
I see no problem in him being included in Serbian infobox. He was Croatian (Bosnian Croat) by birth, however he choosed to be Serb during life, so makes sence. Obama is Kenyan by birth but no one deniyes he is American, as he choosed to. FkpCascais (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Nope. Obama is an American by birth of mixed Kenyan and American ethnicity. What's more, there is an entire movement of people who deny he is American, despite production of official birth certificates, contemporary newspaper announcements etc etc etc. Strange but true.Fainites barleyscribs 07:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Both or none... I pretty much dislike the "sound" of that none. A prominent person like Andrić should be included in a selection like this, somewhere. His inclusion among the Croats is certainly rightful, there's nothing to discuss regarding that. But since he, in his adult life, evidently declared himself a Serb, I think it's not inappropriate to include him in an infobox with prominent Serbs. Quite as a side note, as my own opinion, if a most prominent person of Serb parentage evidently declared himself a Croat, I would never oppose that person's inclusion in any selection of prominent Croats (also I would neither support nor oppose his inclusion among Serbs).
That affair about Obama's birthplace... really incredible. So it's not only the Balkans... It can get even worse ;) Vladimir (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah it's amazing isn't it? He produced his official birth certificate years ago but that wasn't enough. Now the poor officials have had to dig out and certify copies of the original handwritten old one that had already been certified! Won't work though. The Birthers will all say it's forged. As for the both or none, this is not in accordance with policies. Either there are good sources justifying inclusion or there aren't. This discussion is also going on on the Ivo Andric page. Fainites barleyscribs 19:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

number of people

The current number of people is 3x3... howabout making it 4x4? I am not sure if there are any specific rules, but I figure why not? (LAz17 (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)).

I think all Yugoslav people related infoboxes should have 12 pics by default. Brotherhood&Unity FkpCascais (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Both Serbs and Serbs of Croatia are 4x4, so I guess that we should add more. Mm.srb (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Article move

I have reverted a cut and paste move of this article (Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina) to Bosnian Serbs. This for three reasons:

  1. I don't see any prior discussion of this.
  2. The Talk page continued to redirect in the other direction, which was confusing.
  3. Copy and paste moves are not ideal. If the article is to be moved the redirect should be deleted so that this can be moved preserving its history.

I have no strong opinion on the validity of the move itself. Maybe a move is justified. If so, lets do it properly. But before we do that, lets discuss it first.

My preference is for the current title, which I see as being slightly more formal and precise, but this is not a strong preference. What does everybody else think? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss. You did the right thing. That move was done by some random user who obviously doesn't have a clue about the subject. End of discussion. Vladimir (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Mehmed Paša Bosniak or Bosnian Serb?

If MP Sokolović is a Bosnian Serb because he was born a Serb, doesn't that make Emir Kusturica a Bosniak because he was born Bosniak?80.80.40.208 (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Emir Kusturica among other things said his father always declared as a Serb, thus it is tough to define your theory of him being born as an ethnic Bosniak, but it is written he was born in a Bosnian muslim family. (Правичност (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC))

Need more modern pictures

I noticed alot of famous bosnian serb people dont have pictures on their wikipedia articles.... i propose someone to please somehow fetch these pictures and add them into the main infobox on this article. Im talking mainly about Predrag Danilović (serbian ex-basketball star) and Savo Milošević (serbian ex-football star). While i recommend also pictures of Sergej Trifunović, Nataša Ninković and some other famous Bosnian Serb people from modern times to be candidated for input.

(Правичност (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC))

Confusing lead

It used to read “oneof the three constitutional nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina (other two being Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats).” It now reads “one of the three constitutive nations of the country, predominantly residing in the political-territorial entity of Republika Srpska. In the other entity Federation of Bosnia and HerzegovinaSerbs form the majority in Drvar, Glamoč, Bosansko Grahovo and Bosanski Petrovac.” If there are three, why does it say “the other”? What are the actual names of the three entities? Doug Weller talk 20:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Serbs 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Middle Ages

I read the section and most of it has nothing to do with the Serbs in general, yet politics, focusing too much on an individual ruler life, which is out of WP:SCOPE, in other words, it looks like it has some substantial amount of information on the history of the Serbs yet it does not. It is badly written and did not learn anything informative enough to understand Serbs history of the region. A ruler is an individual with a political function, part of an upper social elite class, not someone representative of a general Serbian nation. If there's a dispute in the scholarship about the ethnic identity of the population which includes all three contemporary Bosnian ethnic group claims, political or religious rule or influence and so on, how the national identity was built up, or else, then that should be represented neutrally in the section, otherwise, it's a partial work. Having things like "Vlastimir married..." is pointless. It looks like someone copy-pasted text from other articles without any cohesion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I can generally agree with you (the article needs rewriting), but I thnk that "not being able to learn anything infromative enough" is too harsh. I would use this opportunity to raise the issues on the arrival of the Slavs (6th century). There is quite a solid number of sources on it and it would take me a lot of time and effort to present them here, so I will link just a few: 1) https://www.rastko.rs/arheologija/tstefanovicova-greece_e.html 2) https://books.google.rs/books?id=gbUlnaHlHS0C&pg=PA404&lpg=PA404&dq=the+first+source+on+Slavs+on+the+Balkans&source=bl&ots=ECB4ivSsFB&sig=ACfU3U3zoaM1-gULFNBXJqiytSS1ZM9iuA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZuLrluIXiAhUHwqYKHe_lDI0Q6AEwGXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20first%20source%20on%20Slavs%20on%20the%20Balkans&f=false around ~400. 3) Chronicles written by John of Ephesus 4) The latest Britanicca 5) Modern Serbian history books quote the 6th century together with the 7th as the period in which our ancestor the Slavs arrived to the Balkans. This is very much different to the info I learned in school years back. Back than they quoted the 7th and the 8th century. 6) There are historiand and writers who link Slavs in present-day Vojvodina in the 4th century and even earlier. 7) Figures like Curta have another theory which is a matter of dispute. https://www.ancient.eu/books/0521036151/ Another fact is that only Serbs and Croats came to the Balkans with their original name. There are still Sorbs living in Germany to this day. I am assuming good faith here and guessing that you just have not been informed on these sources, needless to say the presented is only a small proportion. Another point - we can not say ("first mention of them", for Serbs), because it is a matter of dispute and ongoing discussion. I think that a more neutral formulation is needed. Mm.srb (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I am averagely informed about the mainstream historiography and generally speaking the arrival of the Serbs and Croats is dated to the 7th century and usually represented as a second and less numerous Slavic migration. See Vlasto's "The Entry of the Slavs Into Christendom: An Introduction to the Medieval History of the Slavs", Fine's "The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century", Vana's "The world of the ancient Slavs", Sedov's "Sloveni u ranom srednjem veku", Budak's "Hrvatska povijest od 550. do 1100", national encyclopedias and so on, but as there exist other opinions as well they should be represented according to their WP:WEIGHT. However, the arrival in the 7th or so century does not cover the whole Middle Age period.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Goran Bregović is not a Serb

The musician Goran Bregović was born to a Croat father Franjo Bregović and Serb mother Borka Perišić. His father was from a village near Križevci, while mother from Virovitica, both in Croatia. Not only, objectively speaking, his not a Serb, but either himself doesn't consider self a Serb. According the 2012 and 2013 interviews,12 it was said "Na pitanje nemačkog novinara zašto za sebe kaže da je sa Balkana i da se nikada ne deklariše kao Srbin, Hrvat ili Bosanac" (On question by German journalist why for himself says he is from Balkan and that he never declares as a Serb, Croat or Bosnian), and "nisam ni Srbin, ni Hrvat, ni Bosanac..." (I'm not neither a Serb, Croat or Bosnian...). Implying, he is from "mješanog braka" (mixed, implying nationally and ethnically, marriage), which indicates he considers himself as a Yugoslav. Including him as a Serb is falsehood, and as such he must be removed.--Crovata (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I support the removal of Goran Bregović in any ethnic group infobox gallery.--Zoupan 17:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. How about including Nataša Ninković instead? Vladimir (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I would say her career is Serbian, are there any other options?--Zoupan 19:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I would say that Goran Bregovic is a Serb as he is born from Serb mother. He can simultaneously be listed as Croat and Bosniak too, and his own statement declaring himself a Jugoslav implies that he feels to belong to all three main nations inhabiting Bosnia and Herzegovina, but not only one exclusively. That much is clear if we use common logic and we are not getting trapped by nationalistic way of thinking. People can have more than one national identity which seams to be Goran's case. Nothing wrong with that. Goran Bregovic is definitely a Serb as he cannot be different ethnicity than his own mother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:362D:7300:3498:A576:86:51D9 (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Verification

Ivić et. al 1987, pg. 21

  • This source under number 5 has four information's in the article [16]. I can't find the source in question and all information's are from page 21. This is WP:VERIFY issue. I suggest removing this information's based on this source which cannot be verified. Mikola22 (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Original research

Presumed Serbian migratory route in the 6th and the 7th century
The new edits argue that Serbia in the early 10th century extended to Macedonia. It didn't - once more wikipedia is used as a breeding ground for nationalist WP:FRINGE theories.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding new information's from sources and removing some informations

When the Serbs were mentioned in 822 in the Royal Frankish Annals ("the Serbs, who control the greater part of Dalmatia"; ad Sorabos, quae natio magnam Dalmatiae partem obtinere dicitur) either Radoslav or Prosigoj ruled Serbia.

  • Adding information for NPOV: "According to John (Jr.) Fine, it was hard to find Serbs in this area since the Byzantine sources were limited to the southern coast and they make no suggestion that they settled here, but it is possible that among other tribes existed a tribe or group of small tribes of Serbs."[1]

He enlarged Serbia, uniting the tribes of Bosnia, Herzegovina, Old Serbia, Montenegro (incorporated Pagania, Zahumlje, Travunia, Konavle, Bosnia, Raška into Serbia, ι Σερβλια).

  • This information has no confirmation in RS and it is WP:OR and WP:FRINGE information. Added information from RS which speak obout Časlav: "incorporating Travunia and parts of Bosnia"[2] "while the borders of Caslav's state are unknown".[3]

The De Administrando Imperio describes his realm: the shores of the Adriatic Sea, the Sava river and the Morava valley as well as present-day northern Albania.

Serbs from Bosnia often helped the overall Serb struggle against Ottoman conquest of various Serbian lands. For example, Herzegovinian Voevoda Vlatko Vuković also participated in the Battle of Kosovo.

  • Sources which speak about Vlatko Vuković in context of "Serbs from Bosnia often helped the overall Serb struggle" does not exist anywhere and it is WP:OR and WP:FRINGE information.

According to the Turkish census of Herzegovina from 1477, some villages were mentioned as being "in the possession of Vlachs," while others, were listed as "Serb settlements" and mostly deserted.[4]

  • Information from RS(Sima Ćirković) which concerning Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

After the fall, Serbs were subjected to various persecutions, war crimes, oppression and genocide at the hands of Muslims, including the infamous Devsirme system of forced assimilation, various Sharia inequalities, including forced labor, jizya, harsh taxation and slavery. Although their percentage in the overall population decreased, Orthodox Serbs managed to stay a relative majority in their land, and constitute a territorial majority within the territory of contemporary Bosnia, as Orthodox Serbs were traditionally a rural population within Bosnia, while Muslims were more often an urban populace, due to their services as city guards and traders

  • Removing fringe and vandalized information, "war crimes", "genocide", "forced labor" of Bosnian Muslims Bosniaks against Serbs is WP:OR and WP:FRINGE information. The rest is someone’s personal conclusion ie WP:OR.

Until the arrival of the Ottomans, the Orthodox Church on the territory of Bosnia was barely present, only in Herzegovina have an important role. In the 16th century, altrought Ottoman law prohibited the bilding of new churches several Orthodox monasteries were built (in Tavna, Lomnica, Paprača, Ozren and Gostović), while Rmanj monastery in northwestern Bosnia was first mentioned in 1515. According to Noel Malcolm Orthodox believers were oppressed and humiliated, but it can be concluded that Ottoman regime favored the Orthodox Church. [5]

  • Information from RS of Noel Malcolm which concerns Orthodox ie Serbs of Bosnia.
  • Additional source for confirmation: ("These migrations removed many of the cultural and religious barriers that had been established during previous centuries. Not long after the settlers arrived, there was an explosion in the construction of Christian Orthodox monasteries. A significant proportion of the churches in present-day Herzegovina, which was under Christian rule and formed part of the Orthodox episcopates and metropolitanate, were only built under Ottoman rule. The example of Herzegovina reveals that the immigrant Vlach herdsmen had greater religious zeal or economic power than their predecessors who lived there under Christian lords".. monasteries: Tvrdoš near Trebinje, Žitomislić by the Neretva, Zavala in Popovo Polje, the Holy Trinity in Pljevlja, Piva, and Nikoljac in Bijelo Polje, There is evidence that the monasteries of Tavna, Vozuća, Gostović (in southeastern Bosnia), Paprac´a (near Zvornik), Ozren (near Maglaj), Lomnica (in northeastern Bosnia), Moštanica, and Gomionica (near Banja Luka) existed in Bosnia in the first half of the sixteenth century, with Rmanj (Hrmanj) being the farthest to the west at the end of the century.") Book of Sima Ćirković, The Serbs, page 118.

In the defters from the end of the 15th century it can be seen that the Vlachs spread throughout central Bosnia, in areas around Visoko and Maglaj. Over the next fifty years, the number of Vlachs in northeastern and central Bosnia continued to grow, and they also began to settle in northwestern Bosnia. Later followed another large arrival of Vlach settlers from Serbia and Herzegovina. According to Noel Malcolm in these migrations also participated Serbs and Herzegovinians who were not Vlachs.[6]

  • Information from RS of Noel Malcolm in context of Serbs of Bosnia. Information from the source(page 108-109) ("Nisu baš svi ljudi koji su upućeni da se nasele u sjevernu Bosnu u 15. i 16. stoljeću bili Vlasi, a odonda je bilo toliko priljeva i odljeva u povijesti Bosne da nikako ne možemo točno izračunati postotak "vlaških" predaka bosanskih Srba. Uostalom, nisu Vlasi pridonijeli samo porastu srpskog pučanstva..Današnji bosanski Srbi mogu se slobodno predstavljati kao Srbi, bez obzira na svoje vlaško porijeklo..Not all people who were sent to settle in northern Bosnia in the 15th and 16th centuries were Vlachs, and since then there have been so many inflows and outflows in the history of Bosnia that we cannot accurately calculate the percentage of "Vlach" ancestors of Bosnian Serbs. After all, the Vlachs did not only contribute to the growth of the Serb population. Today's Bosnian Serbs can freely present themselves as Serbs, regardless of their Vlach origin.")
  • Additional source for confirmation: ("Vlach groups moved within the territories ruled by the Ottoman Empire, filling the gaps created by war. They traveled from the Pavlović region (southeastern Bosnia) to central regions (Maglaj, Tešanj, Žepče), and only spread north of the Sava and northwest (the future Bosnian Krajina).. 1512 and 1528.") Book of Sima Ćirković, The Serbs, page 117.
  • II. Additional source for confirmation: ("With the Turkish conquest of Herzegovina, the movement of Vlach-cattle breeders to the north began from there..to northeastern Bosnia towards Zvornik, Maglaj and Doboj..1489, also the law on these Vlachs was recorded there) etc etc..Book of Handžić, Adem (page 10) Studije o Bosni: historijski prilozi iz osmansko-turskog perioda[18]
  • III. Additional source for confirmation: ("Waves of migration in the 15th and the 16th century changed the ethnic picture of certain Bosnian areas .. unhindered colonization of the Vlachs, who came to western Bosnia in two directions. Some waves of Vlach migration are rushing through northern and central Bosnia from the Podrinje parts of northern Serbia. Other waves swept western Bosnia over Herzegovina and Dalmatia, bringing Orthodox Vlachs from the Herzegovinian Sandzak") Scientific paper of Mirko Valentić, O etničkom korijenu hrvatskih bosanskih Srba, page 7, [19]
  • Conclusion. Everything is explained and everything is in accordance with the editing rules. As for Orthodox Vlachs which coming to Bosnia, Noel Malcolm talks about them in context of ancestors of today's Serbs from Bosnia. These Vlachs also coming to Croatia and they are part of Serbs of Croatia article. We cannot mention only Serbs in these articles, because the sources(RS) as well as the original historical documents also mention Orthodox Vlachs who are part of the Serbs from Croatia as well as part of the Serbs from Bosnia and Herzegovina. They migrate from Bosnia to Croatia, ie they are part of a common area. Also, article has very few sources as evidence in these sections so it’s probably someone’s private view outside the sources. We as editors need to enter information's from quality sources to improve the reability of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Excellent work Mikola22, you detected some of the problems of this article. However, I can say that problems exceeding these individual examples, with blatantly distorted context in which somehow as if Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks (not to mention Vlachs and later Jews) lived their history in Bosnia and Herzegovina in parallel worlds. All three articles on three constituent people (Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs) were created in such a way that through their narratives they exclude the history of the other two nations, actually even worse, these narratives work in such a way to appropriate completely both history and culture of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a common history and culture of that country, only for that one people, while ignoring the fact that the history of all three peoples, in fact, it only begins from the time when their national consciousness begins to mature (between the 18th and 20th centuries), and that everything before that is actually a common history, which is academically called Bosnian and Bosnian-Herzegovinian history.

I have problems with my laptop whole day long, so I will return with point-by-point analysis with evidences in proper mainstream sources later.--౪ Santa ౪99° 17:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I see your last edit summary and it makes sense. In this article some part of history is presented in one-sided view with information's which concern Serbs, but without NPOV as it is some parallel history ie Serbian history and not common history of Croats, Bosniaks and Serbs. I support your edit. Mikola22 (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Most of this "arguments" are per WP:TENDETIOUS some of them per WP:COATRACK and a lot of them cherrypicked from sources i.e Nole Malcolm or especially Mirko Valentic who is considered to be part of extreme right.

Theonewithreason (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I am having nightmarish difficulties with my laptop whole day, and my Windows is eating away things that I am writing in freezes every few seconds, so I will refer everyone to Mikola22 excellent work on these several examples. I well make some of my own as soon as find a way to fix my laptop without reinstalling software (for example, things like handball club Borac from Banja Luka being Serb handball club historically, which is major bs. and you know it). It's hard to offer solution instead of template msg's when you have TP discussion under way but no one cares to respond, instead editors who disagree resort to reverting - well, you have contested entire chunks of the article, with good arguments, all in line with those temp.msg's. But now you have solutions too, offered bellow by Mikola.--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ John V. A. (Jr.) Fine; (2010) When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans p. 35; University of Michigan Press, ISBN 0472025600
  2. ^ Alexis P. Vlasto; (1970) The Entry of the Slavs into Christendom: An Introduction to the Medieval History of the Slavs p. 209; Cambridge University, ISBN 0521074592
  3. ^ Fine 1991, p. 160.
  4. ^ Ćirković 2004, p. 130.
  5. ^ Malcolm 1995, p. 92-95.
  6. ^ Malcolm 1995, p. 96-98.

Solution for last edit

First we must have neutral sources because here we are reading about strong historical facts which require strong sources.

  • "Battle of Bileća..represents one of the first Ottoman incursions into the territory of the Serb lands of Bosnia and Herzegovina", "Battle of Bileca is celebrated by the Serbs of Bosnia & Herzegovina as one of their first victories against Islamic Ottoman enemy", "Serbs from Bosnia often helped the overall Serb struggle against Ottoman conquest of various Serbian lands", "As the Serbs in other areas of the Balkan Peninsula, Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina also resisted the Ottoman and Islamic conquest", After the fall, Serbs were subjected to various persecutions, war crimes, oppression and genocide at the hands of Muslims(Bosniaks), "Orthodox Serbs managed to stay a relative majority in their land, and constitute a territorial majority within the territory of contemporary Bosnia".
  • These are very strong historical facts from 14th and 15th century which concern the article about history of Bosnia and Herzegovina itself, but you will not find this information's there. Also where are here Bosniaks and Croats for NPOV? They do not live in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Thus, these are one-sided historical information's and without confirmation in the sources WP:OR. I think that for now, this kind of propaganda without evidence must not be part of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Issues

@Griboski:, I always thought that you're relatively agreeable editor, and also just recently I heard from other editors, who are usually on the other side of the argument from you, the same, so I would like to ask you if you have read these points here on TP? Do you really think that important article should have such a glaring distortion of reality, based on unrefed OR?--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Santasa99, I've moved your comment to a separate section so it doesn't get bogged down with the other issues. Some of the passages mentioned above have been removed or corrected. You say that the problems in this article exceeds those issues, can you cite specific examples? You also write that "all three articles on three constituent people (Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs) were created in such a way that through their narratives they exclude the history of the other two nations.." Does this mean the Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina article should also be tagged? And are you maybe suggesting that the respective articles should be merged? Because as I understand it, each peoples has a slightly different history in this region and this narrates the Serb trajectory. It's natural that there would be some exclusion of other groups, no? I think it's better to improve the particular passages rather than just tagging the whole article. --Griboski (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@Griboski:, I think that I at least tried to apply template msg's on Croats of BH a months ago (I don't dare to open any more pages/tabs in my browser until I fix my laptop), but you can check it in article history. I don't think that article should be merged, there is lots of room for separate articles, or if you like it better, for separate histories (cultural and comparative), however, these article shouldn't be stealing from the common history of Bosnia and Herzegovina, regardless of period, and just renaming main protagonists and fixing main postulates so we have Serb/Croat/Bosniak history, that goes back since time immemorial. There is a point in history when these people separated culturally, but even after that their history remained intertwined and shared. Allow me a day to fix my machine and then we can work to fix these articles as a package together, if you are willing. It took me half an hour to post these few lines, while they disappeared twice.--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I'm all for improving the article. I can at least help out with this article, maybe other editors would be better suited for the others. In any case, I don't think anyone will fault you for adding inclusive content supported by reliable sources that will improve the article. All I have seen lately however, is nitpicking on articles on Serbian history to seemingly diminish Serb presence to the point where as another editor put it, one gets the impression that Serbs stumbled into this region from Mars. --Griboski (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Antifascism

I have changed the part of the article which in a total inversion of history described both the Partisans and the Chetniks as antifascist factions. The particular sentence had no source, but I want to highlight the problem of historical revisionism that the Balkan topic area faces. Bibliography doesn't discuss the Chetniks, a faction which committed widespread ethnic cleansing and collaborated with Nazi Germany as antifascists in any way, shape or form. --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Should we then say Partisans were not anti fascists because they killed more people then Chetniks in ethnically motivated war crimes? First battle between rebels and nazis after the capitulation of Kingdom Of Yugoslavia was in Bijeljina which is in current Bosnia and Herzegovina. You are just anti-serbian and thus you want to hide good things about Chetniks. That makes you fascist. 178.221.90.191 (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Serbs_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina/Archive_1&oldid=1237855190"