Talk:Herzeg-Bosnia

Edit War

To help abate the edit war between HolyRomanEmperor and Emir Arven, let's clarify some of the things you are "fighting" about.

First, as long as the article is titled Herzeg-Bosnia, it should be referred to that way in the rest of the article (I have noted the name Herceg-Bosna at the beginning).

Second, the Croats generally disapprove of their current status in the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and there is no reason to say that they solely disapprove of the Federation.

Third, there's no reason not to use the term Bosniak, even if the term was actually produced after Herzeg-Bosnia ceased to exist. For example, census figures in 1991 are all stated for Bosniaks on Wikipedia.

Sorry, but there is. Census figures in 1991 were all stated for Muslims before someone came and changed them, and that's the way it should be. Nikola 12:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I remember when they were changed. However, is there really any practical difference between the two terms? Whoever considered themselves Muslim by nationality in 1991 would have considered themselves Bosniak after 1995. It's not like these people suddenly changed nationalities, only the term was changed. --Thewanderer 20:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, see the example of Montenegro where you actually had 90,000 Muslims in 1991 and later 60,000 Bosniaks and 20,000 Muslims. 'Anonymous'

That should resolve most of the issue at hand. Whether or not the Serbs experienced what the Bosniaks did is something I am not very knowledgeable about, but this back and forth business is not getting you two anywhere. --Thewanderer 15:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I will accept ur advice. Emir Arven 17:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed parts

• One of the cantons of Federation still variably use the name Herzeg-Bosnia Canton in order to keep alive a memory to the former Republic.

The above sentence is not correct. The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina decided that Herzeg-Bosnia Canton was illegal name, so it is not used anymore. source--Emir Arven 18:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The CC can say anything it wants, but the name is still used informally"herzeg-bosnia%20canton". Nikola 13:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• In the majority of municipalities claimed by Herzeg-Bosnia HDZ has previously won the elections and organized gouverment. Blaming the gouverment in Sarajevo for its inefficiens and stressing on its blocation from the rest of the country (Sarajevo was blocked by the Serb forces) it organised its own entity.

False. For instance HDZ didnt win in Stolac, Prozor, Gornji Vakuf, N. Travnik etc. According to Dario Kordić/Tihomir Blaškić judgements and the statements of HOS leaders HDZ "didnt blame the Bosnian government for inefficiency", it planned Herzeg-Bosnia much earlier. It was just an excuse for making a state for Croats, according to Blaž Kraljević, a Croat general who didnt agree with that. You can read his statement here in Croatian Wikipedia.--Emir Arven 18:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

HDZ won the majority in the most of the municipalities (not all). I don't know for sure in which one that's the case, but more than 2/3? Livno, Tomilavgrad, Posušje, Grude, Široki brijeg, Ljubuški, Čitluk, Čapljina, Neum, Bugojno(it had one wote more than SDA in that municipality) are those I know for sure (10), Vitez, Busovača, Kiseljak & Kreševo I'm not 100% percent certaint but all of them, had a slight Croatian majority, and most of Croats (and lot of Bosniaks) voted for HDZ(4 more). Prozor had a Croatian majority of 62% percent, are you sure that HDZ didn't win in it?

Novi Travnik also had a slight Croatian majority, are you certain that HDZ was not wictorius? For Gornji Vakuf I don't know, before war there was 42:56 ratio between Croats and Bosniaks in it, and a lot of Bosniaks then voted for HDZ. Same thing goes for Jajce (ratio 35:38) and Travnik (37:45). HDZ won mostar? (If I remember correctly there was a talk about big deal with SDA and voting in Podvelež for HDZ?), for Jablanicu, Kakanj and Konjic I doubt that HDZ was victorious, and Vareš was won by SDP (the only mostly Croatian municipality which was lost by the HDZ).

So we have 10 for sure and 7 probably (if that article which says that Vareš was the only Croatian municipality which was lost by HDZ is true), 3 maybe, 4 probably not(I think you are right for Stolac, it had ratio 32:44), and one surely not (Vareš).

So it is 17 (maybe +3):5 (maybe+3). In the worst case it is 17 against 8, and in best 20 against 3. And that's without counting Posavina's municipalities. If you have somwhere results from the elections we could put the link on the page...

Ceha

For now, this is uncertain info. So it shouldnt be in the article, no sources to support this thesis. --Emir Arven 14:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

" HDZ je osvojio oko 24 posto glasova premda je na hrvatsko stanovništvo otpadalo samo 17 posto od ukupnog broja. Neki su Muslimani glasovali za HDZ, pa su stoga bili u većini i HVO je mogao preuzeti vlast." Stipe Mesić-->Haško svjedočenje[[1]]

data for;

-Vitez[[2]] "23 HDZ, 16 SDA, 9 SDP, 16 reformisiti, 2 SDS, 2 omladinski savez, 1 socijalisti"

-Busovaca[[3]] "9 A. At that time the Busovaca parliament had 60 10 representatives. The HDZ, SDA, d SDS coalition 11 received 64 per cent of the vote. Out of the 64 per 12 cent, the HDZ had 20 representatives."

-Bugojno[[4]] "The municipal council elected in 1990 included 21 delegates of the HDZ, 20 of the SDA, and 9 of the Serbian Democratic Party"

-Novi Travnik [[5]]"The HDZ had 20 seats in the municipal 7 assembly, the SDA won 17 seats, the SDP won 10 seats, 8 the Reformists won seven seats, and the SDS won six 9 seats in the municipal assembly."

-Mostar[[6]](SDA won only 19 out of 100 seats in Mostar)

-Ljubuški(90%mandata), Čapljina (52% mandata), Kiseljak (HDZ:SDA 45%:40%), [[7]]

SDA has won the govermnet in Konjic [[8]],[[9]] as in Kakanj [[10]]

Odžak(HDZ 56% mandata), Modriča (HDZ:SDP:SDS:SDA 26:26:22:12)[[11]]

opći rezultati izbora [[12]]

"HDZ won 17% of the electorate in 1990, which was exactly the share of Croats in B-H’s population." [[13]]

So HDZ has won majority in almost every municipality in wich Croats had apsolute majority (Livno, Tomislavgrad, Posušje, Prozor, Široki Brijeg, Čitluk, Ljubuški, Čapljina, Neum, Kiseljak, Kreševo, Odžak, Orašje), relative majority (Novi Travnik, Vitez, Busovača, for others I did not found date, but we are talking about Bosanskom Brodu, Bosanskom Šamcu, and in Vareš HDZ has lost) even in some municipalities were Croats were not majority (in wich lot of Bosniaks woted for HDZ; Bugojno, Mostar, Modriča...) and only lost in municipalities Konjic & Kakanj (were Bosniaks had apsolute majority).

I did not found data for Bosanski Brod, Bosanski Šamac & Derventa in wich there is a strong posibility of victorius HDZ (in BB and BŠ-u Croats had a relative majority, and in Derventa there was only one point between them and the Serbs), and for Jablanica(SDA has probabliy won there, there were 72% of Bosniaks in municipality), Jajce (relation C:B was 35:38), Gornji Vakuf(42:56), Fojnica(41:49) i Travnik (37:45), and Kupres(40:8)

So if we don't count Posavina's municipalities (in wich relationship beetwen Croats and the Bosniaks were 4:1) HDZ have won in 16 municipalities, in 4 have lost, and there is mising data for another 5. I call that a majority:) Also, there was a lot of data for this elections on pages of Bosnian HDZ but it is gone now? If you wish further sorces you should try with archives of HTV (Croatian TV, or of some Croatian newspapers, I think they still probably have it somwhere....)

Ceha

Blocade of Sarajevo was the excuse for taking over the gouverment. At the of begining the war Bosnian gouverment was pretty unprepered for it and still hoped for peacefull solution. And Croats did fear majorisation (because of their small numbers and experience with Serbs in ex. Yugoslavia).

You have to provide relevant sources to support this thesis. Ivo Komšić and Stjepna Kljujić were Croat members of Bosnian precidency in Sarajevo. General Stjepan Šiber (Croat) was second man in Bosnian army etc. So it is not about fear, it is probably about manipulation by Croatia and HDZ who asked Croats to leave Posavina and Cental Bosnia (for instance from Vares) and to settle in Suskovo and Bobanovo, new villages built for them in Herzegovina. --Emir Arven 14:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorces are articles in Croatian public press. Even now when somebody talks about future of Bosnia & Herzegovina you can hear fears from majorisation of Bosniaks (relation is 4:1 in favour of Bosniaks). What is the diference between that fear and use of it? (Manipulations do not deny existence of that feeling, they just use it to achive their own purpose.)

There is no relevant sources which can support you thesis. It is just ur POV, and articles in Wikipedia shouldnt be POV-ed. Even when we talk about manipulations or fear it should be sourced.--Emir Arven 13:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of the Croats did flead when Army BiH have taken control ower the towns they were resident (Vareš, Bugojno, Travnik, Fojnica, Kakanj...) and only a small minority remaned.

This is not true. For instance, Croats from Vareš and Kakanj left after they were invited to leave by HDZ politicians. Army BiH came in Vareš when it was completely empty. This is according to BBC documentary...etc.--Emir Arven 13:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are the sources:

• The Death of Yugoslavia in Serbian

• Franjo Tuđman transcripts

• Institut za izvještavanje o ratu i miru - Dnevnik Tribunala - Chris Stephen, Podjela BiH

• War in central Bosnia, James Mason

• Dariju Kordić/Marijo Čerkez judgements

• Tihomir Blaškić judgement

Alija Izetbegović ofered Tudjman whole of Herzegovina (it ofer were similar to that of now actuell SDA offer of Croatian canton from Kupres to Stolac), but Tudjman refused (probably tought he was stronger and would get more at the end). It was newer probable that Croats would abandon Central Bosnia (Vitez and Gornji Vakuf for example).

This is well-known speculation made by Mate Granić, Tuđman's minister. It was confuted by Izetbegović and Silajdžić.--Emir Arven 13:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything inacurate with my changes. If you want to, we could discouss about formulation, but basicly there is nothing wrong with them... If you have some idea how to better formulate it, please tell me so:)

Ceha

As I said before, there should be just verified information by international official documenets in the article. --Emir Arven 13:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Croatian curency was used as there was a crash of a Bosnian banking system (Deutsch mark was used too), and on curricula and symbols they have rights as constitute nation of Bosnia (but it is a crime to prevent other nations to use that same rights).

That part of my corrections was true. You can perhaps say that HDZ used that fears to its own ends, but they were no one the less existent and true.

As for statments of Kraljević, it is clearly true that "Tuta" was a criminal. But at that time HDZ fought along with Bosniaks against Serbs, referendum of independence was won and because of high percentage of Croatian voters, and to my opinion it is highly unlikely to plan a division of another country (Bosnia) while there is a war in your own, and a third of your country is still ocupated with agressors whith which you are allied to attack that other country. I don't see logic in that. And if Serbs and Croats did merge forces, I doubt that lightly armed and isolated Bosnia could survive. I changed some of the formulations. Hope they are now ok.

Ceha 0:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Still no relevant sources. In BBC documentary "The Death of Yugoslavia", the devision of Bosnian is well explained as well as in ICTY judgments. Mostly Croats talked about it (Ante Markovic, Stjepan Mesic, general Spegelj, general Kraljevic etc). Also you can read about that here in Croatian language. It is a part of the book written by Erich Rathfelder...--Emir Arven 14:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that article here is from one were small and unimportan Croatian Party (it realy wanted to create Croatia all the way till Drina river:) Still the logic eludes me.

The article is not written by that party. It is a section from the book written by Erich Rathfalder. This is not about the logic. It is about the facts. ICTY verified those facts as well as official international institutions.--Emir Arven 13:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Half of milion people of Croats in Croatia are driven out of their homes, and the gouverment is dividing neighbouring country (and helps) agressor which had done that to its own country? Why? Croats and Serbs had more equipment (Croats also had a better moral than Serbs), Croats also armed Bosniaks (arms were coming to Bosnian Army via Croatia) to fight against Serbs. If they had talked it ower why didn't just atacked Bosniaks together?

Tudjman was not a stupid man. He knew if he openly attacked Bosnia, he would lose international help.--Emir Arven 13:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak gouverment was not ready for the war at the begining, Europe and the world didn't move a finger while it blead (and Croatia too) if they wanted to divide it who was in their way? (Serbs have cleansed 70% of Bosnia, and noone tall them a bad word) Croatia was at war with Serbia(unoffical, but it was a war), they shelled our towns with grandes, they were killing our people... Why would have we help them?

Ceha

You should ask that you president. He testified in ICTY about that. There is also an article about that in Bosnian here: [14]--Emir Arven 13:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I returned info on Washington Agreement and Herzeg Bosnia Canton. As to the illegality of the name Herzeg Bosnia, that does not change the fact that it is still widely used. Nor does it mean that it does not not merit a mention in this article. The sentence clearly says, "variably", so it's not like we're claiming that it is the one and only name, anyways. --Thewanderer 19:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It should be clarified by whom it is used. Institutions? People? Newspapers?--Emir Arven 19:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If you really find it that necessary to clarify, just say that the majority of Croats (who do make up the majority of the county) still call it the Herzeg Bosnia County. I am sure that even Croat politicians still call it Herzeg Bosnia, but perhaps only unofficially. Personally, I also do not recall ever reading a Croatian article which called it the West Bosnia Canton. --Thewanderer 19:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

To Arven

I don't see why you are reverting my changes. For the elections 1990, I gave you almost complete list of municipalities! Do you know, how much time did I spent on the net, just looking for that? For 25 municiplaities? Please, don't just revert changes! If you see something is incorect, correct it, but don't delete all...

If you want to write about elections in Bosnia in 1991. this is not the article for that.--Emir Arven 18:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But then, why do you delete my change about municipalities? " In most of municipalities claimed by Herzeg-Bosnia HDZ has previously won the elections and organized government." It is well documented (I looked 2 hours for its sorces)

This is not true. For instance, Croats from Vareš and Kakanj left after they were invited to leave by HDZ politicians. Army BiH came in Vareš when it was completely empty. This is according to BBC documentary...etc.--Emir Arven 13:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right about Vareš. I don't know was it like that in Kakanj (don't have enough data). It was not like that in Travnik (the burning of Gučja Gora etc), Bugojno (lot of people still missing), Fojnica (killing of priests?), parts of Novi Travnik, Vitez, Busovača, Croats from Jablanica, Zenica and Konjic.

Again this is not true. Croat forces started to attack towns that you named since June 1992. See Ivica Rajic testimony. He admitted that fact. Propaganda among Croats was very strong. So, I here insist on relevant and neutral international sources.--Emir Arven 18:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ivica Rajic was a war criminal and companion with the Serbs in Kiseljak enclave. Warlord in that area. I'm not speaking about propaganda, I'm just saying that you should prove your sorces (and I don't think that something should be regarded as Holy cow, just because it is from international source. Evryone can make mistake). It is a good policy to read something before you discredit it as propaganda.

Ivica Rajic was protected by Croatian government in Split for a few years. He got new name, flat in Split, protection, financial support etc. When we talk about sources, there are relevant and irrelevant sources. ICTY is very relevant international institution. It was founded by UN, and Croatia is a member of UN.--Emir Arven 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It is known that HDZ officials wanted to have most (or all) Croats in Bosnia under it's control, but it doesn't denny fact that there were crimes comited under this Croats by some soldiers in BiH Army (although some of them were individual, for most of them nobody wasn't held responsable and it is a fact that there were forcefull transfers of population and denying rights of returnees (I think that Ganic has said how many families goes back to Stolac, that many will be allowed to return to Bugojno?). There were war Crimes commited on Croats by some members of BiH Army (Uzdol etc) and if you count propaganda, it is obvious that there was fear within the Croat population of a 4 times larger nation. There was not one major city in Central Bosnia or Herzegovina in wich most of Croats stayed after Bosniac takeover (same can be said for Bosniaks in towns which were in Croatian hands). If you wish reformulate my changes to make this more cleare, but I urge you again don't just reverte my changes. It is consider Vandalism to delete somebody's else articles (wikipedia policy)

This article is about Herzeg-Bosnia. Not about presumptions. You cannot generalize "the fear" to Croats in Bosnia, because it is not true. The second man in Bosnian army was a Croat, Siber. The member of Bosnian presidency was a Croat, Komsic, representing Alija Izetbegovic in very important talks. The commander of Bosnian special police forces was a Croat, Vikic. HOS was fighting under the command of Bosnian presidency. 20% of non-Bosniaks were in Bosnian army.--Emir Arven 18:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but they represented minority of Croatians. On almost every ellections HDZ wins between 80-90%of their votes?

This article is about Herzeg-Bosnia. Five things are disputed(which you delete over and over again):

1) "In most of municipalities claimed by Herzeg-Bosnia HDZ has previously won the elections and organized gouverment. " I documented that. Please do not delete sourced material

Before the war Bosnian towns were multhietnic. It is not true, that HDZ organized governmets in those towns, before the war. HDZ, SDA, SDP and other parties organized together governments.--Emir Arven 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In majority of the cities claimed by Herzeg-Bosnia major of the city was from HDZ. Have you read the information which I gave you? Maybe the formulation of the sentence could be better, but that is not the reason to delete the whole sentence.

You forgot the main thing. Before the war towns were multhietnic. Croats were not the absolute majority in those towns. HDZ authorities/HVO made ethnic cleansing first. It started in June 1992. So if you want a real formulation you cannot avoid ethnic cleansing. The second step was to destroy all mosques and some orthodox churches (in Zitomislici for instance) or old town and towers with mosque in Počitelj. Or Old bridge in Mostar. Just in Hezegovina around 100 mosques were destroyed by Croat authorities.--Emir Arven 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

But elections were in 1990, HDZ won the majority of municipalities (in half of them majority was only relative), and that was before any ethnic cleansing.

2)"Blaming the gouverment in Sarajevo for its inefficiens and stressing on its blocation from the rest of the country (Sarajevo was blocked by the Serb forces) it organised its own entity." Medias under HDZ control did claim that during the war! From the statments above it is clear that it could just be HDZ propaganda and as such is in accomondation with wikipedia policy

Then it should be written like that with sources provided. ("During the war HDZ propaganda claimed that...according to that source etc").--Emir Arven 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"Blaiming the goverment..." Who blamed the goverment? Who organized new goverment? was it not HDZ?

It was not new governmet of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was Croat Republic Herzeg-Bosnia that was de facto part of Croatia. --Emir Arven 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

New government on that territoy (part of Bosnian territory). De facto. Not de jure. Nevertheless, my formulation is true. HDZ did blame Bosnian goverment for inefficency. Were his statments true, that is another matter. Neutral observer can figure it out for himself.

I don't see how is that not clear. Word propaganda is not NPOV word. I've told you before that you could change my formulations if something is wrong. There is not need to delete them!

I have just shown you how your formulation is wrong.--Emir Arven 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Not realy. In my formulation there is no mention of goverment, just of HDZ policy; (HDZ) 'Blaming the gouverment in Sarajevo for its inefficiensy'In the begining of the ww2 Germany blaimed Polish goverment for invasion on its borders. Why does it border you? HDZ HB goverment did blame goverment in Sarajevo for unefeciency (fall of 70% of Bosnia under Serb occupation). You (for example) can blame american goverment that it has unjust pretensions in Iraq. Why woudn't somebody be allowed to quote that in the article about you? Quoting is part of wikipedia policy. It does not mean that the qouted sentence is true.

Also I would prefer communication in Croatian/Bosnian langue for now on. It takes me a lot of time to explain something to you (part are my bad formulations, but part is your english:) and I don't see the problem with neutral formulations.

3)"As Croat leaders Herzg-Bosnia leadership was included in Geneva peace talks which divided Bosnia and Herzegovina in three ethnic republics. On 28 August 1993, the Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosnia declared itself the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia." Also true. Don't see why this should not be said.

I didnt understand this sentence.--Emir Arven 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

'Kao predstavnici Hrvata vodstvo Herceg-Bosne je bilo uključeno u ženevske mirovne pregovore u kojima se raspravljalo o podjeli Bosne i Herzegovine u 3 etničke republike. 28. kolovoza 1993, Hrvatska zajednica Herceg-Bosna se proglasila Hrvatskom republikom Herceg-Bosnom' Than it is ok?

Ovo nije tačno. Vodstvo Herceg-Bosne nije predstavljalo Hrvate. To je uvreda za sve probosanske Hrvate koji su se zajedno s Bošnjacima borili za BiH. Upravo da bi se ogradili od hercegovačke struje bosanski fratri zajedno s hrvatskim intelektulacima iz Sarajeva, Srednje Bosne, Posavine osnovali su Hrvatsko narodno vijeće u vrijeme kada je Herceg-Bosna otvarala konc logore po Hercegovini. HNV je jasno reklo da je Herceg-Bosna separatistička i zločinačka tvorevina nastala na etničkom čišćenju. --Emir Arven 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Na izborima 1990 HDZ je dobio većinu među Hrvatskim pučanstvom (imaš link gore) i kao takav bio pozvan na Ženevske pregovore(ili jednostavno kao prestavnici vojske koja je držala dio Bosne). Problem nastaje u tome što oni jesu pregovarali u Hrvatsko ime... Promjena formulacije? Tj. izbacivanje dijela 'Kao predstavnici Hrvata' i započinjanje rečenica s 'Vodstvo Herceg-Bosne'?

4)"Following Herceg-Bosna's establishment in November 1991, and especially from May 1992 forward, disagreaments with bosnian goverment only intensiffied.

Herzeg-Bosnia was not created because of fear. I have shown you plenty of documents. Herzeg-Bosnia during the war was de facto part of Croatia, with its symbols, financial system, economical system, post system etc. --Emir Arven 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But fear was used in it's creation. Croats had the right to those simbols as they are one of 3 constitutal nations in Bosnia? Do you think that Herzeg-Bosnia could had been made in peace time, and without Serbian agression?

Herzeg Bosnia was created before Serb aggression. I will show you the Croat reference written by Croats: "Kratka povijest hrvatske agresije na BiH" (The Short History of Croat aggression on Bosnia) by Igor Lasić and Boris Rašeta. In this reference you can find the document which talks about meeting that took place in November 1991. in Grude about goals of Croats in Bosnia. Those goals were earlier formulated with Franjo Tuđman on the meeting in Zagreb (June 1991.). Here is a quote: "HRZ i TRZ ostaju kod svojih zaključaka donijetih na ranijim odvojenim sjednicama, da hrvatski narod ovih regija ostaje i dalje uz jednoglasno prihvaćena opredjeljenja i zaključke usvojene na dogovorima s Predsjednikom, dr. Franjom Tuđmanom, 13. i 20. lipnja 1991. godine u Zagrebu. Ove dvije regionalne zajednice, (...) odlučuju da hrvatski narod u Bosni i Hercegovini mora konačno povesti odlučnu, aktivnu politiku, koja treba dovesti do realizacije našeg vjekovnog sna - zajedničke hrvatske drzave." (zaključci iz dokumenta potpisanog novembra 1991. u Grudama o ciljevima hrvatskog naroda)--Emir Arven 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Herzeg Bosnia was planned before Serb agression. It was able to have so much of power, only because of Serbian agresion, and the fact that most of towns were HVO was present (except Posovina's and later Jajce).

Some (maybe most) leaders of Herzeg Bosnia were war criminals, but some were not. Croats in Bosnia did fear (most of them still fear) that they would be margionalised and turned over in national minority. In war there was lot of war crimes against Croats comited by Bosniaks (I'm not trying to marginalise, or equvalate war guilt), but Herzeg Bosnia or things that happened in it could not been possible without previous events.

I agree that some crimes against Croats were commited by Bosnian army. It is tragedy for all who loves Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnian army was led not just by Bosniaks but Croats as well. The differce is that crimes were not systematically conducted against Croats and they didnt happen at the beginning of the war. Also, criminals that did those crimes were prosecuted by Bosnian courtes in 1994. during the Siege of Sarajevo. They happened at the end of this war when Herzeg-Bosnia finished ethnic cleansing on its territory.--Emir Arven 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunetly there were war crimes long before 1994:( Samostan na Gučaj Gori? Nestali ljudi iz Bugojna? Uzdol? There was some talk about Dzevad Mlaco, etc... I don't think that any war criminal should get away no matter what nationality is he. As Ivica Rajić is embarisment for Croatia (osobito njegove skrivanje nakon rata, tako su i bilo koji drugi ljudi za bilo koju drugu nacionalnost). Da li znaš zašto je pao Vareš? Tj. HVO napustio grad? Ljudi iz Stupnog dola su trgovali sa bosanskim Srbima plaćajući vareškom HDZ-u reket. A to je bila izravna konkurencija crnom tržištu na području Kiseljaka pod kontrolom I.Rajića. I što je ovaj napravio? Uzeo 200 vojnika, prešao preko srpskog područja, preuzeo vlast u Varešu (pri tome je pobio i neke Hrvate), spalio Stupni dol, rekao da će se A BiH doći osvetiti (što je bilo logično za očekivati) i pokupio većinu ljudi iz njega, te ih transportirao preko srpskog teritorija u Kiseljak (većina muškaraca je ostala u Daštanskom, jer Srbi nisu htjeli dopusti prolazak 'pojačanja' HVOu). Ivica Rajić je bio ratni zločinac. Osoba koja je ušla u HVO tek nakon početka rata i nakon što je odslužio još 3 mjeseca u JNA. Nemam tu konkretan izvor, ali jedan srpski oficir je tvrdio da su mjesečno na crnom tržištu znali zaraditi milijun maraka. Žalosna je činjenica što u većini ratova postoje ratni zločinci:(

After the war some SDA politicians (and they were representatives of Bosnian goverment then)tried to opstruct return of Croats in some parts of Bosnia (Dževad Mlaćo and Bugojno, for example). By doing so he was promovating politics of ethnic cleansing and devision of Bosnia (those refugies had to go somewhere, and that was somebody's else house most of the time). When you speak of something it is very important to verify its motives and contex in wich it happened. Serbs occupied part of Bosnia. International community was silent. 3 milions of people were crowded on less then 30 percent of Bosnia. Some of them though that they would be better without its neighbours.

When you speak about Bugojno, you forgot what happened. Croat army commited massacre on 50 civilians in Vrbanja, part of the town, in July 1993. After that they attacked the town. But they lost.--Emir Arven 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not excuse. War crime is any action in wich civilians get hurt. You can have analogy with a men to whom somebody killed and tortured entire family. If he kills and tortures family of people which have done it to him, is he any different? How can anybody deny somebody the right to return to his home? As I said, those people got to go somewhere. If they do not go to theirs homes they will go to somebody's else, so Bosniak people in Bugojno wich prevented return of Croats are responsible for prevention of return in Stolac (or somewhere else), and vice-a-versa. Only people which profit from that state are nationalistic parties which get more of their voters that way. Any crime is wrong, no matter the contex. If somebody killed somebody's families or killed prisoner or war he should be brought to justice. No matter the nationality. And it is very wrong for persons who should represent entire population of Bosnia (Ejup Ganić) to stop return of somebody just because of its nationality.

I am not talking about war crimes, nor excuses. I am talking about chronology. As I know, church in Bugojno was not destroyed nor other catholic buildings. That is a proof that no systematic crimes were conducted by Bosnian government against Croats. Croat army attacked Bugojno, Prozor, Novo Travnik and Gornji Vakuf in the same time. They took control over Prozor, a part of N.Travnik and a part of G.Vakuf. But they lost in Bugojno. Of course they continue to attack Mostar in the same time, but noone won there. Refugee situation after the war is not the matter of this article. That was my point. I dont mind that you write that in some other article that is about refugees in Bosni. On the other hand, when you talk about Ejup Ganić, he was a member of Bosnian presideny just like Ivo Komšić and Stjepna Kljujić were. Both Croats, and bothe representing Bosnian in peace talks.--Emir Arven 11:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about war escalation between HVO and A BiH in territories of Middle Bosnia and Herzegovina. Jajce fell in october 1992, and it was defended by both sides, so begining of the war is after that.

Conflicts lasted in Novi Travnik for few days (after October 18), conflicts in Prozor were over by 25.10.1992. and I think it was similar for Gornji Vakuf. Fight for Bugojno was between July 19 and 23. But in this time(before april 1993), HVO and A BiH were oficialy allies. These confilcits remined localized (there were no major operations at the time). The point of refugies is that HDZ settled refugies from territories controled by A BiH croatising those areas. Why are you defending E.Ganić? Do you think that statment which is preventing somebody to return just because of nationality is right??

You have to understand that there were many Croats that stayed with their neighbours. Herzeg-Bosnia didnt represent Bosnian Croats. The real Croats who were fighting for Bosnia were in HOS and HNV.--Emir Arven 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

For example in Bosanska Posavina and around Tuzla there were no war between Bosniaks and Croats. Main war happened in Middle Bosnia and Northern Herzegovina.If you look the census before and after the war you can see that majority of Croatians were in HDZ-control territories. I'm not speaking about difference between right or wrong. In Travnik there was 37% of Croats before the war and now its only 14%. In Bugojno there was 34% percent, and now is 19%. In Kakanj 29% and now is only 11% Konjic has 6% of Croats, and before the war there was 26%. In Jablanica from 18% now is only 3%. In Vareš more than half is not returning... (of course probably similar things could be said about Bosniaks of Stolac and Jajce) but all of this things are said...

The refugee situation was caused by Croatian policy. No doubt. When Croat leaders decided to kill Blaž Kraljević and to destroy HOS and friendship between Bosnia and Croats, their main goal was to move their own population from Bosnia to Herzegovina. For that purpos they built Šuškovo and Bobanovo villages. Read Tuđman's transcript for more info. Jadranko Prlić said it should be done because it was a pragmatic goal. Tuđman agreed.--Emir Arven 11:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Where are Šuškovo and Bobanovo? I heard that you mention them before, could you tell me theirs geografic position (in wich municipality)? If you look map of Bosnia and Herzegovina you would see that that stament does not folow logic. Bugojno, Fojnica and Gornji Vakuf should be good examples. They are linking Middle Bosnian enclaves with Herzegovina which HVO did defend. What would be use in removing 127 thousands of Bosnian Croats from Middle Bosnia ('To je samo Srednjobosanski kanton') In Mostar Croats and Bosniaks were almost equal in numbers (one percent was the difference, and in Stolac ratio were 3:2 for Bosniaks). Were would all of that people go, and why? Most of the fighting was in Central Bosnia, and HB did claim majority of that area. I think we are going away from the topic. We should concentrate on the formulation of my changes, making them clear and removing any incorections in them...

Croats feared that the bosnian gouverment have become mono-ethnic, non prepared for war (burning of Ravno by JNA, serbian ocupation most of eastern and western Bosnia), and that is planing to settle most of Bosniak refugees in municipalities whith high proportions off Croats thus mayorizing or even expelling them.

This is false. You cannot generalize that "Croats feared". I have shown you that many Croat politicians were part of Bosnian leadership. Even those from Herzegovina, as Blaž Kraljević from Ljubuški and his units.--Emir Arven 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of Croats feared. I'm from Zagreb. When Serbs destroyed Ravno or granated Croatia from BiH Izetbegović claimed it was not theirs war(he was not ready for war, but nevertheless that was his statment). If you ask most of Croats from that part of BiH, they would say to you that they felt betried. Most of them did vote for HDZ, right?

I have never heard for such statement by Izetbegovic. I just read that in similar discussion that Croat papers wrote that, but I didnt see the source. Even in the history books that are written by Bosniak authors, Ravno is mentioned as the first place which was attacked by JNA in Bosnia. The truth is that Izetbegovic asked Bosniaks who were in JNA in Croatia to leave that army and to come back home in Bosnia. That was his official statement as a president of Bosnia. --Emir Arven 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

But there was not any direct action against Serbian forces (perhaps there could not be one, Bosnian goverment was not prepared for war), and there were not any strong actions after that (when slovenian war excaleted some Croatians came to fight in Slovenia against their common foe. This was not the case:( I also never heard him say that (or see video), perhaps you are right, perhaps it is missinformation. JNA call should probably came sunner...

Bosnian government accused them of separatism and usage of Croatian fears to form its para-state. Small conflicts over settlement of refugies and coordinations of mutual army efforts against JNA (and later Serbian army) exalated in war after Wance-Owen peace plan which incomporated most of territories claimed by Herzeg-Bosnia in Croat cantons." also true. Perhaps it should be said, Croats from Herzeg-Bosnia territory? You should serch from info and medias (it could be called propaganda) from that territory.

I didnt understand ur English in the above sentence. Can you write it again or explain better? --Emir Arven 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

'Bosanska vlada ih je optužila za izdaju i upotrebu hrvatskih strahova za stvaranje paradržave. Manji sukobi oko smještaja izbjeglica i koordinacije zajedničkih napora protiv JNA (i kasnije srpske vojske) su se rasplamsali u rat poslije Wance-Owenovog mirovnog plana koji je predvidio da većina teritorija traženog od Herzeg-Bosne postane dio hrvatskih kantona'. Možda gore umjesto upotrebe, bi bolje pasala riječ zloupotreba (misusage?)

The war didnt started because of refugees. Novi Travnik and Gornji Vakuf were attacked by Croats in June 1992 and there were no refugees.--Emir Arven 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Npr. dosta HDZovih političara iz Hercegovine je tvrdilo da je do rata u Hercegovini došlo radi nesporazuma oko smještaja pretežito Bošnjačkih prognanika iz Istočne Hercegovine, (u slučaju Središnje Bosne to su prognanici iz Bosanske Krajine), koji su narušili etničku sliku pučanstva (većina općina u sred. Bosni je imala omjer 1:1 između Hrv i Boš, nakon dolaska izbjeglica taj omjer se mjenja u 1:3 ili više.) Koliko znam to nije službeni početak rata, jer bošnjačka i hrvatska strana još uvijek surađuju u akcijama protiv Srba, a i postoje deklaracije za smirivanje stvari, za privođenje krivaca, itd. Otvoreni rat na svim frontama (središnja Bosna i Hercegovina) počinje negdje oko 4.mjeseca 1993. U Travniku je prije rata dio fronte držao HVO, a dio A BiH...

5)"Croatian symbols and currency were used (Bosnian monetary system cracked at the begining of the war, Deutsche mark was also used), and Croatian curricula and the Croatian language were introduced in schools." Don't see why crash of Bosnian monetary system wouldn't be included in this article. In explains wider concept.

Bosnian monetary system was not cracked, not even during Sarajevo siege. Croatian dinar, was introduced befor the war in Herzegovina, in 1991.--Emir Arven 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge only solid curency in Bosnia was Deutsche mark. The main argument of Croatian politicians against Bosnian curency was that that it had no value (hyper inflation during the war?) and that was used just to extract money from the people to ('šačici podobnih') persons close to goverment (missuse of money is sadly part of any war).

Bosanski dinar was used as a curency. I still remember how it looked like. Deuthsche mark was used as well. Hrvatski dinar (Croatian dinar) was introduced in Herzegovina and parts of Central Bosnia with Croat majority a year before the war.--Emir Arven 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that was after collapse of one state (SFRJ), and transitionary period. Was there a hyperinflation of Bosnian dinar?

If you wish to contribute to this article please do not delete sorced material. It is considered vandalism. Also as this is article about Herzeg-Bosnia there should be notions about contex wich allowed some things to happen. If you wish you can change the formulations of some of my changes (to make them more accurate) but I don't see why it should be deleted. Also it is not POV when you say Croatians though (or most of Croatians from Herzeg-Bosnia territory though) but it is according to wikipedia policy see[[15]]. It is allowed to qoute different opinions which do not agree with your own, and as such acheave NPOV. Deleting somebody opinion wich differs with your own is a bit Stalinistic:) If something is not true, you can discuss it or change it a bit, but not vandalise it...

You must formulate your sentece more accurate, because there are many information which are difficult to understand. Also, you must provide sources for this. I have not seen any relevant sources for your thesis. Also, some of your changes were included by Thewanderer.--Emir Arven 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad formulation is not reason for deletation. If you can see something that you can not understand (or it has bad formulation) I will gladly translate it for you. If I'm mistaken in any of my changes please correct me. And I've given you a lot of data:) For municipalities, I've given you links, for blamation of Sarajevo goverment you can look in archives of Večernji or Jutarnji list, archives of HTV or most of Croat(from Croatia or HVO held Bosnian territory) and it is formulated in a way that any neutral reader could comprehend it as propaganda. For mention of Geneva talks, I can(will) give you link(s). For generalisation, you should look on the net for Croatian pages from HVO held territory). I asked you not to delete changes. You are not a censor:) If you have something to say (or see that something is wrong) you can preformulate it. Deletation is a bit vandalic, don't you agree. Also I asked you to try to read some of Croatian data. No matter how much of it is propaganda, you could better understand what did they say, and why(propaganda is not for stupid people, and you can't just openly lie, hoping that you will get your way), and what is false in that. You can't just tell this is a lie and completly ignore it. Somethimes your oponent lie is the best argument of your side.

There is no relevant sources which can support you thesis. It is just ur POV, and articles in Wikipedia shouldnt be POV-ed. Even when we talk about manipulations or fear it should be sourced.--Emir Arven 13:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't se how is POV to speak of something what is realy going on. If you ask any Croat from Herzegovina or Central Bosnia he will tell you the story (or fear) of majorisation... This would be as qouting a Bosnian Serb that he does not want to live in Bosnia. That is his opinion. We could argue what are is he right or not(presumably we would be on the same side:), but it is a fact.

I don't see why every information on the topic must be on the net. Two great books:) Višnja Starešina, 1.Labaratorij Balkan & 2.Haška formula

Here are the sources:

Thank you for info, I read them, but some of it is a little bit confusing. In the article [16] several time is mentioned letting go of most of Central Bosnian enclaves, and at the end there is a story of defending them. Bosnian Croats fought were hard for that enclaves, there is also a story of Cro-helicopters going for wounded and delivering wepons in it (ride in Helicopter cost more than just 100dm, just fuel is much expensier:) so there was a will to defend those enclaves. Even Milošević ofered Croats just western Herzegovina (this new SDA proposel should convice you) and there was a article on index [17] in wich Silajdžić admited that Izetbegović ofered Herzegovina to Tuđman (he said that latter Izetbegović said to him, he was just testing Tuđman).

This is not true. I have seen recently Silajdzic in Bosnian TV, when he clearly stated that this was not true. And it was not the first time, that Croat papers (for instance National) wrote similar things.--Emir Arven 18:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

National is yellow paper. Index is not:) You say that Silajdžić said that Alija Izetbegović did not ever ofered not a bit of Bosnian territory to Tuđman? Alija Izetbegović participed in talks which were about dividing Bosnia (Geneva talk), he also signed own agreement with Krajisnik (I forgot the name of it, it was lord Owen brocered around time of signing in Washington about percentage, wich lucly never came to life), and was talking a lot about territorial changes. Middle Bosnia is much more valuble land that northern Herzegovina. You are qouting just one side in the conflict (I'm not saying that Silajdžić is wrong, I'm just saying that you should read more documents from other side to achive your own (and neutral) judgements).

As you can see, my sources are all international and neutral. I didnt quote any Bosnian source. If I do that, that would be completely different article, and Croat policy would look much much worse. But I didn't do that. I just provided official documents, and relevant sources. So I expect from you to do the same thing, not to put rumors and assumptions without validation.--Emir Arven 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little bit bias when it comes about talking to British side (or Commonwelth, perhaps you did see that?). Most of my changes (except elections of 1990) are made from sorces from population on that territory and newspapers from that territory. I will try to give you the exact documents, but I doubt there was much documents of Herzeg-Bosnia on the net.

If Herzeg-Bosna had a policy I think minimum of it was to have Vitez and Lašva valey, and that was inpossible without Bugojno (so why would they just abandon it?).

As I said before, there should be just verified information by international official documenets in the article. --Emir Arven 13:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why is more credible statment of a person from a country which was for arms embargo (Douglas Hurd and British forign policy) while Bosnian people were dying than informations which were writen by the Croats, describing situation of themselves. And don't see which part is un true. Personly you could ask anybody in those areas, and that would be their opinion...

Are you kidding me? Croat papers said that Old brigde was destroyed by Bosniaks. When they realized it was a crap, they said ok we did it, but it was a military target. Also, they said very pathetic things about conc camps for Bosniaks, Heliodrom, Dretelj, Gabela...They denied Ahmici massacre, Mokronoge massacre, Stupni dol massacre, killings in Makljen (Prozor ethnic cleansing)...So international sources are much more relevant than Croat press.--Emir Arven 18:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes and what does that mean? The highest acnowledgment of your own statmen is when you show that your aponent's statment is untrue. Reducio ad apsurdum (latin).

You probably know that Paddy Ashdown was in Manjača one week before arrival of tv-news. He described situation as "a little harsher prisoners camp, but nothing to worry about". Lord Owen drunk Šljivovica and sang high praises about Mladić. About what independent sources are you talking about?

As I can remember Peddy Ashdown explained that situation. Radovan Karadžić showed him what he wanted him to see. I am talking about UN courte. Not about individual.--Emir Arven 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Paddy Ashdown is a MI6 agent. This may sound funny but one man did make publicly known list of MI6 agents (I forgot his name,I can look up if you wish) and the name of Paddy Ashdown was on the list. Man who publicazed that list is currently in jail, and British foreign secretary did not ever denied it. UN peace forces did guard Srebrenica(I'm sorry for this brute comparison, but I think it is necessary). I don't think we should talk about theirs abilities:( Any document which is placed in article should be able to withstood direct analysis?

The article is not written by that party. It is a section from the book written by Erich Rathfalder. This is not about the logic. It is about the facts. ICTY verified those facts as well as official international institutions.--Emir Arven 13:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Read the book. Yesterday:) Writer is a little bit bias. For example while liberating the land from the Serbs he cheers that Army BiH comes first in Jajce, so it could had more saying in the future, or he call Central Bosnia Croats just Bosnian Catholics (it would be as somebody would call Bosniak Muslim Croat or Serb, do you see my point? you can not deny people's right to selfdetermination) And it has it's own representation of the facts... There was a book Civil war in Central Bosnia (I forgot the writer, althought it was an american one, which talks about conflict in Central Bosnia as Civil war).

Irrelevant for the discussion.--Emir Arven 18:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant that writer was bias or that I've given you some data about Bosnia war?

The term Bosnian Catholic has nothing to do with the discussion. He called them mostly Croats.--Emir Arven 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Tudjman was not a stupid man. He knew if he openly attacked Bosnia, he would lose international help.--Emir Arven 13:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If he teemed up with Milošević, no international help would be necesery. Slovenia did not need international help to achive independence. Would Croatia need it without Serbian troops on it's soil?

You should ask that you president. He testified in ICTY about that. There is also an article about that in Bosnian here: [14]--Emir Arven 13:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've heard whole of his testimony. He doesn't have a good explanation. There should be answer to just one question. Why?

Ceha

Well, you are not the international judge. So it is not up to you to decide whether it is a good explanation or not. ICTY made its judgements. It is done and it is based on thousands of testimonies, material evidences and other proofs. So are those judges from 50 countries against Croats? Is this some kind of international conspiracy against Croats?! I dont think so.--Emir Arven 18:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But I'm not stupid either. Why should you acept something which doesn't have good evidents? If some judgement is wrong it could be nullified. (Blaškić for example).

Blaškić judgemet was not wrong. He received 9 years, but the facts that were proven still remains. He received smaller sentence because he claimed that Croatia had control over HVO and Croatia was responsible for massacre that happened in Ahmići. That was his defence. Similar was confirmed by ur general Janko Bobetko in his book. And by general Špegelj. They are not foreigners. They are all Croats.--Emir Arven 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Blaškić judgement was wrong. He recevied 9 years because he used civilians for military works (not for Ahmiće). I don't deny war crimes in Ahmići, I'm just saying that they judged wrong person for that crime (he was freed from that latter)

No, the judgement was not wrong. In every judgemet there is a part called: "Findigs the fact" which explains all events that happened. The second part of the judgemenet is about specific role of the accused. Blaskic said Croatia was responsible, that was his defence. And he got 9 years. The new trial will start soon. There are new documets about his role as well as Croatia role in that war.--Emir Arven 22:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have data about making and functioning ICTY? (again I recomend you Starješina's books) Do you know that there is not a acusation against atack on Vukovar (there is acusation against war crimes on Ovčara, and not about daily granating civil targets in the city with 500 grandes), and that it almost was acusation against to much granating of Knin (acording to the statment of one Canadian soldier, almost 50 grandes fall on the city(vilage) and one (which hit Serbian tank) almost destroyed a window of the civil house which was by the tank). Serbian attack on Croatia and Bosnia (killing and banishing so many peoples) is not a crime endevior, but Croatian retaking of so called 'Krajina' is. There is not a international conspiracy. There are states and its interests. There is a lot of data regarding war on this area. Lot of it is not true. Ceha

Can you tell me what are their interests? Are they against Croatia? ICTY is an UN institution. Croatia is a member of UN and supporter of ICTY. I dont understand. What interests?--Emir Arven 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you value UN too much:( I can give you few books to read about ('Stoljeće rata', 'Stoljeće nafte', etc.) if you are interested about world politics. As for ICTY (knjige of Starješine) I could say that they had a rough begining. From south-african judge (do you now first case in Central Bosnia, 6 Croats which were first commited and later freed?) which latter published that book and in the last chapter argumentet as ICTY is a good court as it can fix some errors ('Oslobodila ih je sutkinja Arbour radi potpunog nedostatka dokaza, u knjizi južnoafrički sudac uopće se ne obazire da ih je on osudio, niti da su oni radi njega proveli bez veze toliko vremena u zatvora'), to its legal system (it is not continental judgment like in almost every state on Europe continent (except Britain), but a unique mix of anglo saxon and continental ('većinom anglo saxonski u kojem zadaća tužiteljstva nije da dođe do istine nego da dokaže krivnju prema optužnici, bez obzira na druge dokaze, nažalost ovo je istinito, pravo i pravda nisu 2 iste iste stvari:( )Kao što sam rekao mogu ti dati literaturu, pa si malo pogledaj. Ne vjerujem u neku zavjeru protiv Republike Hrvatske, ali recimo da postoje svakakve stvari a da je apsolutna neutralnost nemoguća. Ako ti se da raspravljati reci mi zašto su Velika Britanija i Francuska tijekom bosanskog rata bili protiv ukidanja embarga na oružje? Embargo je bio nametnut od strane UNa. Također, nemoj se naljutiti, ali čini mi se da uopće ne razmišljaš kritički. Nijedan dokument nije sveta krava... Ako nešto ne stoji, onda ne stoji, bez obzira tko ga je donio. I još jednom bi te zamolio da prestaneš brisati moje promjene. Nemam ništa protiv ako nešto izmjeniš, ako argumentiraš, ali ovo je zbilja neprofesionalno. Shvaćam ako vidiš Hrvate samo kao agresore, ali moraš također shvatiti da si ti isto podložan državnoj propagandi i da ne možeš samo tupiti kako je nešto propaganda. Normalnom čitatelju je dovoljno staviti nešto na uvid i on će sam odlučiti o istinitosti istog. Ako sam loše nešto formulirao mogu ti prevesti ili ukazati ti na neku knjigu. Od viška informacija glava ne boli:) Pozdrav!

Ceha

Ja bih tebe zamolio da ne ubacujes konstantno identicne recenice dok se diskusija ne zavrsi, jer nemas nikakve osnove, niti jednog dokaza do sada. Mogao si dovoljno zaljuciti iz ove diskusije da imas samo pretpostavke i vlastite zakljucke koje clanak ne bi trebao da sadrzi. Ako nemas dokaza, onda nemoj uporno insistirati da se recenice ubacuju. Smijesno je da sud u Hagu smatras nepouzdanim, a pisanje Vecerenjeg lista boljim izvorom. Ja nisam htio da dodajem ni jedan Bosanski izvor kako bi zadrzao NPOV princip. Da ja pocnem dodavati izjave sa BHTV, FBIH, NTVHAYAT, Dnevnog avaza, Oslobodjenja, Jutarnjih novina, vjeruj mi da bi clanak bio totalno drugaciji, a ti ne bi imao nijednog valjanog kontrargumenta da to osporis. Ipak, ja sam se zadrzao samo na neutralnim internacionalnim dokumentima kako ne bi bespotrebno doljevali ulje na vatru. Uskoro pocinje sudjenje rukovodstvu Herceg Bosne i sigurno ce ta presuda dati nove podatke o svemu ovom.--Emir Arven 22:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Da si probao pročitati moje promjene vidio bi da sam neke stvari promjenio, i da stalno mijenjam neke formulacije. U zadnjem povratu si mi i izbrisao link na rezultate općinskih izbora iz 1990! Da li ti uopće čitaš te promjene? U cijeloj diskusiji mi nisi dao niti jedan jedini argument da moje promjene ne stoje. Po čemu sam ja odbacio sud u Hagu? Po čemu i jedna moja promjena niječe bilo što izrečeno na Haškom sudu? Za Blaškićevu presudu nisam nigdje rekao(ajde pročitaj još jedamput moje riječi!) da nije bilo zločina u Ahmićima, niti sam na nijedan način uopće spomenuo ulogu RH u cijelom sukobu. Rekao sam da se držiš izjava iz Haga bez da ih dokazuješ. Bilo je žalbi u kojima su prijašnje osude odbačene. Npr. Kupreškići. Ali sve od toga je totalno ne bitno za moje promjene! Ima 5 stvari koje uporno briseš(po 555put)

1) HDZ je pobjedio u većini općina koje je htio uključiti u HB (imaš rezultat izbora na linku)

Ceha. Kad kazes da je HDZ pobijedio u vecini opcina, to ne znaci da je HDZ imao vecinu u toj opcini. Eto uzmi prijmjer Viteza i saberi koliko su ostale stranke dobile mandata, a koliko je dobio HDZ. Mislim da pitanje nacionale strukture mozemo rijesiti sa sljedece dvije mape:

--Emir Arven 15:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Gledaj, HDZ nije bio apsolutni nego većinski pobjednik u većini tih općina. U zadnjoj formulaciji sam stavio da je HDZ osvojio relativnu većinu na općinskim izborima 1990 u većini općina u kojima je kasnije formulirana vlast u koalciji sa , te da je HDZ u njima postavio gradonačelnike. 'In most of municipalities claimed by Herzeg-Bosnia bih_elections-1990 HDZ has previously won the elections (with cooperation of Serbian and Bosniak national parties), organized gouverment and elected mayors.', još sam i stavio link za stranicu s izbornim rezultatima (one koje sam mogao naći). Nigdje ne piše da je HDZ samostalno dobio apsolutnu većinu u tim općinama.

A što se tiče nacionalnog sastava, HDZ nije pobjedio samo u općinama s hrvatskom većinom, već i u nekim sa Bošnjačkom većinom (Bugojno, Mostar), što može značiti jednu od dvije stvari a)dosta Bošnjaka je glasalo za HDZ, b)odaziv Hrvata je bio veći nego odabir drugih naroda (smatram da je u slučaju Bugojna više riječ o prvom slučaju nego o drugom, omjer H:B je bio 34:42?). Naslov druge karte ti je krivi. S obzirom da sam ju ja osobno izradio (bila je izbrisana, s obzirom da sam uzeo osnovni grid općina s linka visokog predstavnika, ne gledajući copyright) i prikazuje teritorije pod kontrolom HVOa i A BiH. Na područjima pod kontrolom HVO je bilo dosta Bošnjaka, koji su tada djelovali u sastavu HVOa protiv srpskog agresora. Također na i jednim i drugim područjima su postoajale jedinice i jedne i druge vojske (HVO je tada smatran regularnom komponentom bosanske vojske) ali je jedna, odnosno druga vojska bila u većini.

A što se sastava pučanstva u HBu tiče, ako želiš mogao bi se napraviti posebni članak o tome.

2) za odcjepljenje i organiziranje nove vlasti je krivio neučinkovist vlasti u Sarajevu. U čemu je problem? Koja nova vlast (pogotovo ako je pučistička) ne krivi staru za sve probleme???

To je netacno. U prethodnoj diskusiji sam objasnio. Druga stvar, Herceg-Bosna nije zamjenila vlast BiH, nego se otcijepila od BiH i uvezala u struktur RH.--Emir Arven 15:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

HB je napravila puč na dijelu teritorija. Prilikom tog puča je tvrđeno da vlast u Sarajevu ne zastupa dobro hrvatsko pučanstvo, koristile se informacije da je tijekom spaljivanja sela Ravno, napadanja RH sa teritorija BiH, A.Izetbegović rekao da to nije njihov rat. Također je kao informacija kružila činjenica da je JNA osvojila dosta velikih gradova (u istočnoj i zapadnoj Bosni) s Bošnjačkom većinom, dok je većina gradova sa znatnim hrvatskim udjelom obranjena. U mojoj formulaciji nigdje nigdje se ne kritizira vlast u Sarajevu, već se naglašava da je HDZ to činio prilikom uspostave vlasti. 'Blaming the gouverment in Sarajevo for its inefficiens and stressing on its blocation from the rest of the country (Sarajevo was blocked by the Serb forces) it organised its own entity.'

HB nikada formalno nije bila dio RH. Imala je svoje pretstavnike, izbore itd. Druga je stvar što je RH (barem djelomično) financirala tu tvorevinu.

3) HB je proglašena republikom za vrijeme Ženevskih pregovora u kojima se raspravljalo o podjeli BiH na 3 etničke republike. Plan Owen-Stoltenberg? Zar bi svaki pojedini pojam morao imati neki link? (a i linkovi koje sam ti dostavio očito nisu prekorisni jer kada si me tražio rezultate izbora, kasnije si tako i tako izbrisao rečenicu i rekao da rezultatiuopće nisu bitni (zašto si me onda tražio izvore???))

Vec sam prezentovao dokument (i to hrvatski) koji govori da je Herceg-Bosna zamisljena jula 1991.--Emir Arven 15:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Rečenica gore govori o formalnom proglašenju republike. HB je prije bila samo zajednica općina. Ne vidim zašto je taj dio sporan.

4)priče o početku rata. Rat se rasplamsao nakon što je Travnički kanton dodijeljen Hrvatima i HVO pokušao očistiti A BiH iz njega, tj sukobi oko zajedničkih vojnih snaga (wance-owenow plan)

Rat se rasplamsao mnogo ranije. Preciznije juna 1992. Kada je HVO napao Novi Travnik i G. Vakuf.--Emir Arven 15:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Koliko znam to su bili lokalni sukobi (ako imaš neki link koji tvrdi suprotno slobodno mi ga daj:). Većina stranih postaja početak rata stavlja oko 15. travnja 1993 kada je bio rok za primjenu W-O plana. Prije toga roka Hrvati i Bošnjaci su još uvijek (možda samo formalno) u BiH bili saveznici (bilo je i par sporazuma o smirivanju napetosti, itd...) Pa oko Travnika i Bugojna se još uvijek koordiniralo oko linije fronte protiv srpskih snaga?

5)oko upotrebe simbola i novca. Na sve te simbole Hrvati su imali pravo kao konstruktivni narod, a što se novca tiče, glavna valuta je tijekom rata bila njemačka marka. Siljenje učenika drugih naroda da se pridržavaju hrvatskog kurikuluma je protuustavno, ali nisam imao vremena da to pravilno formuliram.

Hrvati jesu imali pravo da svoje simbole ili vjerske osjecaje zadrze u krugu svoje privatnosti, kao i ostali gradjani BiH, a ne da ih namecu ostalim narodima koji su tu zivjeli. Svi simboli BiH su uklonjeni, a stavljene su sahovnice na skole, bolnice, ulice itd.--Emir Arven 15:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

BiH je konstitutivna država Hrvatskog naroda, ne samo građana (postoji mala razlika). Vijorenje zastave ili isticanje hrvatskih simbola nije grijeh. Grijeh je kada se to radi uz sakrivanje simbola države u kojoj se nalaze. Ali opet moja rečenica ne tvrdi ni jednu od tih stvari(zapravo dio sa simbolima osim novca, nisam uošće mijenjao). Kod novca sam stavio da se koristila i njemačka marka, te da je bosanski monetarni sistem propao tijekom rata, za što si me upozorio da nije dobra formulacija. Ali s obzirom da je postojala hiperinflacija, te da je novac ubrzano gubio vrijednost, trenutno ne mogu smisliti dobru formulaciju ('there was hyperinflation in Bosnian monetary system during the war'?)

Također stvar koju sam tek sada shvatio da sam zaboravio spomenuti je što sam ubacio u formulaciju dio 'Herceg-Bosna leadership engaged in continuing and co-ordinated efforts to dominate and "Croatise" (or ethnically cleanse) the municipalities which they claimed were part of Herzeg-Bosnia, setling Croatian refugies from territories controled by Bosniak gouverment with increasing persecution and discrimination directed against the non-Croat (especially Bosniak) population.' što je HDZ radio. Naseljavao ljude koje su izbjegli iz jednog mjesta u drugo da bi se povećala lokalna hrvatska većina.

Nijedna od ovih stvari nije išla na štetu niti bosanske vlasti niti u opravdavanje HBa. Sve stvari opisuju stanje kakvo je bilo na području HBa, od naseljavanja izbjeglica pa na dalje. Jedina stvar koja bi eventualno mogla biti sporna je dio o 'hrvatskom strahu' ali to također još nema ispravnu formulaciju. Svaka promjena je u skladu s NPOV wikipedinom politikom, a ne vidim zašto bi za svaku od ovih stvari morao postojati konkretan link! Minimalno 10 puta sam te pozvao da mi pomogneš oko formulacije svake od navedenih stvari umjesto da ih samo obrišeš! O kakvom doljevanju ulja na vatru govoriš? Ajde daj pročitaj još jedanput NPOV politiku [[18]], da li u njoj piše da smiješ citirati tuđe mišljenje, bez da se slažeš s njime??? Dio sa generalizacijom hrvatskog mišljenja je možda moja greška, ali nikako ne uspjevam naći ispravnu formulaciju za situaciju u kojoj 80-90% biračkog tijela bira pripadnike jedne stranke čije je službeno mišljenje takvo i takvo! Prepucavanje i flip-flop oko neke stranice ne vodi apsolutno ničemu, a pogotovo ne koristi wikipedije. Mislim, koja ti je stvar vraćati sve na staro usprkos svakom dokazu? Na samom početku diskusije si me tražio izvore za rezultate izbora 1990, ja ti ih pošaljem, a ti svejedno izbrišeš rečenicu za koju si tražio potkrijepu?? Ajde molim te probaj malo to pročitati i razmisliti o svemu rečenomu. Niti jedna od mojih namjera nije bila loša niti služi za nametanje tuđeg mišljenja, niti opravdanju HBa(milijunti put!) već proširenju konteksta. I ne shvaćam zašto pričaš o izjavama iz bosanskih medija, niti kako bi nešto bilo drugačije da navedeš, makar kao izvor neku od tih izjava. Koja je razlika između rečenice 'the Herzeg-Bosnian leadership is presently awaiting trial at the ICTY on charges including Crimes Against Humanity' i navođenja konkretne optužbe za zločin? Svaki zločin bez obzira na nacionalnost treba biti kažnjen. Zar su crvena krvna zrnaca nekog zato što je jedne nacionalnosti imuna na ratne zločine?? Pročitao sam tvoju molbu da ne ubacujem stalno iste stvari i evo pročitaj sve što sam napravio, napisao, proradi na formulaciji i slobodno ubaci moje promjene u tekst (u dogledno vrijeme) :Ceha

Na ovom i na mnogim drugim clancima, Emir i drugi sire haske brljotine kao da su sveto pismo, uopste se ne obaziruci na brojne kritike tog "suda" koje pokazuju da se on uopste ne moze uzeti za ozbiljno. Moj je savet da se na to ne obraca previse paznje, ono sto Hag kaze je njegova tacka gledista a itekako postoje i druge tacke gledista. A evo sad Emir kaze da ako se tako radi ce on postavljati tvrdnje iz izvora koji su naravno jos nepouzdaniji od Haga. To je u potpunom neskladu sa Vikipedijinim pravilima i smernicama.

Samo sam Emira pozvao da se ponaša u skladu s wikipedijinom politikom. Moje osobno mišljenje o Haškom sudu je pri tome nebitno. Citiranje tuđih izreka je dopušteno, dok se naglasi da su izrečene od jedne strane, štoviše prikazivanje izjava ili ciljeva protivnika obično pomaže neutralnom promatraču da sam donese svoj sud i da ponekad uvidi neke opasnosti od takvog razmišljanja. Npr. Rečenica; HDZ je okrivljujući vladu u Sarajevu za neučinkovitost i pocrtavajući njezinu blokadu od ostatka zemlje (Sarajevo je bilo blokirano od srpskih snaga) tako organizirao svoj entitet. Ne znači da je HDZ imao pravo, samo da je to tvrdio... Te informacije su bile prenjete u većini hrvatskih medija. Izrečena je na potpuno neutralan način i ne vidim zašto bi bila skrivena.

Ne ja sam rekao, da ukoliko se uvode mediji s jedne strane, tada ce se morati uvesti i s druge strane, a s obzirom na kolicinu zlocina, izvori koje cu ja prezentovati ce prevagnuti totalno. Da ne govorim kada bismo se osvrnuli na srpske zlocine u BiH, Croatiji ili Kosovu. Tad vas ne bi nista na svijetu opralo za vijeke vijekova. Haske presude su mala maca. --Emir Arven 15:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Gledaj nemam ništa protiv uvođenja informacija sa strane ukoliko je jasno naglašeno tko to tvrdi, te u kojem je kontekstu rečeno. Ako kažeš da je Bosanska vlada optužila HDZ za separatizam to stoji. Stvar je da navedeš svoje izvore, probaš minimalizirati uvredljive izrike za suprotnu stranu (bez skrivanja istine) i da se potrudiš oko formaliziranja teza. To je wikipedijina NPOV politika.

Ceha

Uzgred, mozes se jednostavno potpisati kucanjem ~~~~. Nikola 13:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Nikola svoje cetnicke fantazije mozes okacit macku o rep. BiH je tuzila SCG pred Medjunarodnim sudom pravde u Hagu za genocid i agresiju. Hrvatska takodjer, doduse za agresiju, a ne za genocid. Stoga je jasno zasto ti se Hag ne svidja. Ipak ljudi nisu toliko naivni da vjeruju vise Vojislavu Seselju koji tvrdi da je u pitanju Vatikansko-Americko-Islamska zavjera protiv srpskog naroda. S druge strane divno je sto te interesuje moj rad.--Emir Arven 15:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, neke priče jesu za malu djecu:) Moje sve sumnje oko haškog suda su vezane oko njihove stručnosti (npr. sada je malo falilo da Milošević dobije liječenje u Moskvi te da odradi svoju kaznu u nekom luksuznom zatvoru, poput Biljane Plavšić koja u svom zatvoru ima bazen i poslugu), zato sam ti rekao da malo pročitaš gore navedenu literaturu. Ali ni na kojem editu nisam izbrisao nešto što je izrečeno od strane Haškog ili nekog drugog suda. Niti na bilo koji drugi način donio neku POV preinaku. A uostalom kritičko razmišljanje prema svemu jača duh;) Ceha

Conclusion

Ceha, postavio sam mape o etnickoj kompoziciji BiH iz 1991, 1993 i 2005. Mislim da je to rjesenje koje nikom ne smeta. Neka svako izvlaci zakljucke iz mapa na svoj nacin.--Emir Arven 11:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sve je to u redu, jedino što karta iz 1993 nije etnička:) Pretstavlja stanje na frontu. Tj. dominantnu komponentu vojske u općina prema srpskom agresoru. Karta iz 1991 je isto manjkava jer se ne vide omjeri između pojedinih naroda u BiH (vidi se samo koliko je većinski narod u nekoj općini imao postotaka). Također, fali karta fronte iz 1994, jer ako se usporede fronta HVO i A BiH iz 1994 s karta etničke kompozicije općina iz 2005, vidjet ćeš da su skoro istovjetne...

Trebala bi se staviti i karta općina na kojima je pojedina stranka dobila relativnu većinu (jer kao što si naglasio u većini općina je pobjedila koalicija nacionalističkih stranaka, ali je gradonačelnik bio iz samo jedne stranke) i link na nedovršenu stranicu s izborima iz 1990. HDZ nije pobijedio samo u strankama sa većinskim hrvatskim pučanstvom... Spominjanje ženevskih pregovora(vidi promjenjenu formulaciju), uz isticanje međunardnog nepriznanja HBa se također treba uvrstiti, trebalo bi se umetnuti i utjecaj Wance-Owenovog plana na sukobe, te slabosti bosanskog monetarnog sistema (DM koji se djelomično koristi kao platežno sredstvo). Što se tiče tvrdnji HDZa uz citate, mislim da bi trebale biti dopuštene u ovome članku. Pozdrav! Ceha

Wance-Owenow plan

Dodao sam još par linkova, stavio neke izmjene. Za rasplamsavanje sukoba postoji citat iz wikipedije, sa stranica o bosanskom ratu.

Bosnian_War 'To make matters even worse, in 1993, after the failure of the so-called Vance-Owen peace plan which practically intended to divide the country into three ethnically pure parts, an armed conflict sprung between Bosniak and Croat units in a virtual territorial grab. The Croats and Bosniaks began fighting over the 30 percent of Bosnia they held.'

Ceha

"one of the terms isn't referenced in target articles"

Onel5969, could you explain what did you mean by that? Thanks, Notrium (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. You created a dab with two targets. One of those targets did not reference this as a valid term for that target. Please take a look at WP:DAB. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)