Talk:Herzegovina/Archive 1

Archive 1

INTRODUCTION

What the heck is the garbage in the introduction??? (why don't you admit you are a Serb, and biased)

"The name Herzegovina means "Herzog's estate", which refers to a medieval ruler of the area, Stefan Vukčić Kosača, Herzog (Duke) of Saint Sava, the first Serbian archbishop. As part of preparations for the annexation of Bosnia by Austria-Hungary the "divide and rule" policy was imposed by the European powers upon the gravely weakened Ottoman administration. The name of Herzegovina (Southern Bosnia) region of Bosnia was to be incorporated into the name of the country, which then changed her name from "Bosnia" to "Bosnia and Herzegovina" in 1853. Subsequently, Austria-Hungary also allowed Serbian and Croatian missionaries lead by Vaso Pelagic to cross into Bosnia in order to carry out their missions of "national awakening" of locals. As a result of these hegemonistic moves by Belgrade and Zagreb (coordinated by Vienna in behalf of European powers), most Orthodox and Catholic Bosnian Christians had systematically converted to "Bosnian Serbs" and "Bosnian Croats". This was part of the England's tactics to force Bosnia's Muslims into Christendom. That would enable England to easier implement its long-term key strategy of homogenizing the Balkans in response to a strong Russia, and "crashing" the Balkans whenever Russia gets weak. As a result, two Yugoslavias were created and subsequently made to collapse so far, all in response to Russia's strategic strengthening and weakening, respectively."

this is pure biased, and incorect infomation. anyone with half a brain would know that Austria- Hungarys offical policy was NOT to allow the slavs of the austria-hungary empire to get stronger, so this rubbish about zagreb trying to convert christian slavs of bosnia into croat nation is a pure lie, and aswell they would definatly not want to encourage bosnia's orthodox christians to view themselves as serbs, as belgrades kingdom of serbia had its ambitions towards bosnia aswel..

more naive muslim propaganda if you ask me, which is totaly incorect in everyway has to be deleted.--Jadran 01:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Insults are not a good way to solve disputes you might have. I reversed your deletion. Balkanean 01:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sections of the introduction were overtly biased and contained speculation dressed up as fact. Deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.215.42 (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I remember, Herzog means Duke in German. This was given to the Bosnian Vojvoda Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca after repelling Sultan Fatih's soldiers in 1463. He was given this title by the Austro-Hungarian empire because the Serbs were already loyal servants of the Ottoman empire. However, under Sultan Bayazit, in 1482, the Bosnian Duchy of man from Blagaj fell to the Ottoman Turks and most importantly, he fell to his son who was taken by the Turks and brought back as one of their janissaries.

In 1867, there were only two Roman Catholic Churches in the entire state of Bosnia and they were like missionaries in Africa today. As far as Serbian orthodox churches are concerned, there were very few churches in bosnia that existed prior to 1867 because the only part that really had any churches was Lika and Dalmatia. The churches there were Serbian orthodox churches and the serbs there were the only christians in bosnia that weren't kmets or slaves in Turkish. As far as ionizing the christian popullations go, there weren't any christians in bosnia for them to ionize. The only christians were the ones sent to bosnia by serbia and croatia.

As far as your wierd comments regarding Anlo-Turkish hatred, I highly dispute this as will many historians. Turks and Brits have many years of friendship and cooperation which was shown by Turkish entry into NATO.

Croatia didn't have a state since around the begining of the 12th century. Croatia was under the Austro-Hungarian empire the entire time. People suggesting that the bosnians were strong enough to take territory from the austro-hungarian empire are ridiculous at best because it was difficult enough for the Ottoman Turks to take anything.

No member of the Bosnian Royal family nor any Bosnian King was ever born a Catholic or a Serb Orthodox so please stop inventing history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.43.39 (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Today's Herzegovina

The "Today's Herzegovina" section of the article is highly fragmented and written in language that is far from encyclopaedia-appropriate (or even correct) English. I've said it before for other articles: if you don't have a mastery of the English language, don't edit articles on English Wikipedia. The information presented isn't completely without value, though, so if anyone with a solid grasp of the language cares to edit that section, more power to you. --The Berzerk Dragon 14:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) "MOre muslim propoganda" What is that suppose to mean? Unlike some of you, we actually know our history... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.173.210 (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Herzegovina map

The map posted by Zec seems to make Herzegovina far too small. On the west side Herzegovina should extend at least to Tomislavgrad. On the east side, it should extend at least to Foča (as is mentioned in the article). I think my map is more accurate and it shouldn't be too controversial. However, if you disagree with these borders, I'm interested to hear what that disagreement would be. :-) --Thewanderer 23:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I think there should be blurring near Livno which is often disputed. No idea where the border near Jablanica and Konjic is, or about Foča. --Joy [shallot] 00:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that my map made Herzegovina too small. On the other hand, the map posted by Thewanderer makes undoubtedly Herzegovina too large. Regarding, whether the town of Tomislavgrad and Livno are in Bosnia or Herzegovina, both of them are in Bosnia. Historically, both of the towns have been a part of Bosnia not Herzegovina it is only during the past 15 years that the towns at times have been included in Herzegovina for political and national reasons mainly during the time of Herceg-Bosna and some time after. To the north it is widely accepted that a few kilometres north of Konjic is the unofficial border between Bosnia and Herzegovina. About Foča, I don't understand why it is claimed that the town is in Herzegovina it has always been a part of Bosnia and the town is also located just on the Drina river that divides Bosnia and Serbia. More specifically, Foča is part of the Bosnian Podrinje (today located in the Republika Srpska entity). For the time to come, I will post a version of the map provided by Thewanderer where I believe that Herzegovina takes too much of the territory of Bosnia. I expect feedback regarding the disagreement of the borders between Bosnia and Herzegovina so a more proper map can be posted. --Zec 22:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem we face is, what do we want to conisder Herzegovina? Is Herzegovina the land that Stjepan Herceg ruled over? Or is it simply whatever people want to consider themselves?

I will agree that the Livno issue has only arisen since the 90s. This has happened for several reasons. The main one being that the word Bosnian has come to equal Muslim for many people. Whether people considering themselves Herzegovars can essentially make a region become a part of Herzegovina is an interesting question. Whatever the case, while Livno may be culturally closer to Herzegovina, a majority would say its part of Bosnia (although disagreements continue). However, there are good arguments which place Tomislavgrad in Herzegovina. For example, under Ottoman rule TG was usually located in the Herzegovina sanjak (it was also a part of the Klis sanjak at times). I believe it was also a part of Herzegovina during Austria's administration of the country (but don't quote me on that). Tomislavgrad is also a part of Mostar-Duvno's bishopric which covers Herzegovina, unlike Livno which is part of the Bosnian Banja Luka bishopric. If we place the border of Herzegovina at Šuica, TG would be included. It seems like the placement of the border around Studena Vrila (which you are putting forth) is something that only occurs after 1945. TG is also very close to Herzegovina in terms of the geography (karst landscape) and culture (ganga, ikavica).

Now, criteria have to be settled, because it's not as easy as saying 'the border is defined as being HERE'. If we consider the original land that Stjepan Herceg himself ruled, Herzegovina would stretch from Livno to Herceg Novi (in Montenegro). That's impractical. I'd like to put the western border at Šuica because of the reasons I stated - historically the region has had much closer ties to Herzegovina than Bosnia. About the eastern border, I don't really know much. The Foča article goes out of its way to mention that it is a part of Herzegovina as does this article. I made assumptions using this information (either the info is wrong, or the map; one should be corrected).

Feedback is welcome. --Thewanderer 03:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I would say that the borders between Bosnia and Herzegovina should be designed if one can say this on the background of history, culture and what the people of the place in question feel and I believe that this is the most important thing.

Now, regarding the town of Livno, I would say that although Livno was part of Herzegovina for some time, I don't think it is culturally closer to Herzegovina. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, culture is very complicated and a mixture of many things and influences on so many different layers that it is almost impossible to attach Livno more to the culture of Herzegovina than Bosnia because cultural factors are also very disputed in Bosnia and Herzegovina and generally in the Balkans. On the other hand, I'm rather certain the the majority of people in Bosnia and Herzegovina and most importantly the town of Livno and the area around it would say that Livno is part of Bosnia even if it was part of Herzegovina for a period of time.

Regarding Tomislavgrad being a part of Mostar-Duvno's bishopric which covers Herzegovina, I believe that this is the result of the past 15 years and all the ethnic and political tensions in the area. Therefore, I don't think that this should be put as very important because it is a direct result of the past 15 years and all the nationalism. Now, I think that probably because of practical and economical reasons that under the Ottoman rule Tomislavgrad was usually located in the Herzegovina sanjak. In other words, I would not see this either as very important. However, regarding the close attachment of Tomislavgrad geographically speaking to Herzegovina e.g. the landscape, I think that this might be a result of the constant development that the earth has went through and is still going through and especially the southern parts of Europe, namely some southern parts of Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy, and the parts I'm thinking of Dalmatia and Herzegovina. Conclusivly regarding Tomislavgrad, I think it is very difficult to say if it is in Herzegovina or Bosnia. Prior to the Yugoslav wars, I think that the majority of people in Tomislavgrad regardless of ethnic background saw their town as part of Bosnia. However, because of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the nationalism, this attitude has somewhat changed. I believe that nationalistic Croats in the area see Tomislavgrad as a part of Herzegovina which they also see as a part of Croatia. However, I believe that the moderate Croats and the majority of the other ethnic communities in the Tomislavgrad area see their town as part of Bosnia. So it is very difficult to put Tomislavgrad either in Bosnia or Herzegovina.

About Foča, I think that the information is wrong if it says that Foča is part of Herzegovina. The town of Foča is not and I'm almost 100% sure that almost all of the residents of Foča would say it is part of Bosnia(today probably it is more common to say the Republika Srpska entity of BiH). However, there may be some small parts of the Foča region that are generally accepted as being in Herzegovina and I'm talking about the area south of the town of Foča namely some of the southern parts of the Foča Region.

OTKAD JE FOČA HERCEGOVINA???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.208.56 (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Awaiting Feedback especially regarding Tomislavgrad. --Zec 22:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Note: The actual author of these edits is not Zec the edits are only posted once again by Zec

If we go back into history, the borders of Duke's land, who by the way has nothing to do with King Stevan's brother and saint Savo, was a much larger entity. The cities of Bar, Podgorica, Niksic, Plav-Gusinje were given to the kingdom of Montenegro (A Serb City state that numbered less than 100,000 people in the city of Cetinje) during the Congress of Berlin in 1878. Foca as I remember might have been part of the original Duke's Sanjak while part of Bosnia in today's bosnia-herzegovina. Allthough Republika Srpska is an entity inside of Bosnia-Herzegovina, it is not an entity that is recognized or talked about as an entity outside the borders of Bosnia, legally speaking of course.

Allthough Tomislavgrad or Duvno is forced upon world historians as a town where King Tomislav was crowned, I as do many historians doubt the accuracy of this claim. This was most probably a historical fallacy espoused by the fascist regime of Ante Pavelic much like Hitler's invention of Austrian History. The Bosnian border was the city of Zadar during the 1463 liberation of Bosnia by Ottoman Turks and their leader Sultan Mehmed Fatih. Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca was duke of a souther duchy in Bosnia called Zahumlje (capital city of Blagaj) who wasn't overpowered by the Turks for a full 19 years after the fall of the rest of bosnia. In 1482, the duchy of Herzegovina was liberated by Sultan Bayazit and one of Kosaca's sons who was turned into a Jannisarry by the Ottoman Army. Kosaca had only muslim relatives with no family members born as catholics or serb orthodox.

Today's Bosnia-Herzegovina had less than twenty churches in the entire state of Bosnia-Herzegovina, less than fifty Serbian Orthodox churches, one synagogue turned into a museum, and over fifteen thousand mosques. The Ottoman Turks are known for not tearing any churches down so the popullation figures of Serbs and Croats are highly inflated and incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.43.39 (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia/Herzegovina

Why is there an article on Herzegovina but not on Bosnia (which is just a redirect to Bosnia and Herzegovina)? Seems a bit weird, no? - ulayiti (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The primary reason is that nobody wrote an article about Bosnia, at least not one that would talk about it as a region instead of a country. --Joy [shallot] 23:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Herzegovina belongs to Croatia and it always will. Maybe not in my lifetime but rest assured that we Croats will take it back. -KingCroat

Damir Mišić

"However it should be noted that an official border between Bosnia and Hercegovina does not exist nor has ever existed. Hercegovina is looked upon as a natural part of the state of Bosnia."

The first line is not necessary. Look at the note underneath the map. This information is already located there. The second sentence simply does not make sense. Please do not keep returning it. --Thewanderer 01:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The quality of the language may be disputed - but regarding the content of the text nothing is wrong. The article will have to explain the relation between Bosnia and hercegovina since Bosnia and hercegovina aren't "and" in the same sense as perhaps serbia AND montenegro are Damir Mišić

You are incorrect. The region of Herzegovina is not part of the region of Bosnia. Both regions form the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina, just like Dalmatia, Istria, Lika, Slavonia, etc. form the country of Croatia. In the same way that Istria is not part of Lika, the region of Bosnia is not part of the region of Herzegovina. --Thewanderer 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No but what you are saying is that slavonija, dalmacija and so on form croatia; I agree, but then you say hercegovina and bosnia form Bosnia and Hercegovina - shouldn't the real name of croatia then be Slavonija, dalmacija and Istria, and not croatia ? Damir Mišić

If anything, shouldnt you be asking the question what should the real name of Bosnia and Herzegovina be, as Croats are a people who inhabitat the regions of Dalmatia ,lika etc, who thus called all the regions combined, the land of croats i.e Croatia --Jadran 04:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you make a Croatia parallel, or a Serbia parallel, or for that matter, a Germany parallel, you have to keep in kind that these three states are not regions that turned into states, but ethnic names that lent their names to states. The borders of political Serbia moved around as the majority of Serbian people moved its habitat around. Bosnia's always been centered around a geographic region, regardless of the ethnicity that inhabited it. Bosna is a river that had lent its name to a region that had lent its name to a state that expanded to include other regions. Serbia and Croatia are nation-states of Serbian and Croatia people respectively and not regional categories. Serbian historical regional categories are Raska, Kosovo, Sumadija, Bosna, Hum or Herzegovina, Boka etc. Even Ottomans never named their provinces Serbia or Hungary, but gave them geographic attributes. -Crni Jahac-~dec~4~2007~

East/Old Herzegowina

What about East Herzegowina, or so called Old Herzegowina that makes up a half of Montenegro. Today the state border diveds it from the rest of Herzegowina, but people in East Herzegowina are considered even today to be Herzegowinians and they have the same customs, tradition, language as Serbs in "bosnian" part of Herzegowina and are complately different from Montenegro's east tribes, such as Vasojevici.

Borders of Herceg Stjepan's lands varied, as he was definitely politically stronger than his nominal overlords, the kings of Bosnia. At one point, he even taxed Dubrovnik. His domain centered around the town of Blagaj near Mostar, but stretched, at times, deep into today's Montenegro, at all times including Herceg-Novi, the last city in Herzegovina fallen to Turks. Today's border between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro is not a result of preset regional lines, but of the ability of the Montenegrin Principality to liberate parts of Herzegovina that were under the Ottomans in the second half of the 19th century. Princes Danilo and Nikola succeeded in liberating and annexing certain parts of Herzegovina, like Niksic, Grahovo, Zabljak and Pljevlja, but not others they aspired to liberate, like Gacko, Bileca, Trebinje, Nevesinje etc. The eastern border was a result of a set of historical circumstances, nothing more. Niksic is still culturally part f of Herzegovina. There is a confusion when it comes to the western borders. Before Kosaca, there was another Herceg in these parts, Hrvoje Vukcic Hrvatinic, who, in his time, following the death of King Tvrtko, was himself politically more powerful than his nominal overlords, the Bosnian kings. His regions centered around the Donji Kraji area around Jajce and spread southward to include parts of today's Western Herzegovina. The difference between the two was in that Stjepan affiliated himself with the tradition of St. Sava, who, as a young Serbian prince, was appointed the ruler of Hum by his father, before he ran to Mt. Athos. I'd say that Tomislavgrad definitely is Herzegovina, but that Livno, Glamoc, Kupres, Gornji Vakuf and Prozor are not. According to Vuk Karadzic, whose grandfather moved to western Serbia from Drobnjaci, a Serbian tribe from under Mt. Durmitor, now in Montenegro, he was a Herzegovinian and Herzegovina of his time stretched as far as Kolasin to the east and Priboj and Prijepolje to the north. This roughly coincides with the borders of Herzegovina of Ali-pasha Rizvanbegovic. Don't forget, Stjepan's Herzegovina and Ali-pasha's Herzegovina were not regions, but political entities that expanded and shrank as the political circumstances dictated. Today's Herzegovina is a leftover of these states. I'd say that the northern border of Herzegovina is at Ivan-sedlo as that's a natural divider between the two regions. As for Srbinje/Foca, functionally, it is more Bosnia than Herzegovina, but most of its population stems from Herzegovina and they bring the physically close Herzegovina to Srbinje/Foca. The same could be said about Gorazde, Priboj, even Uzice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crni Jahac (talk • contribs) 14:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is that people in Herzegowina as part of Bosnia and Herzegowina, and people in Montenegro cosider that part of Herzegowina is in Montenegro which is true. So why making an article only about a half of Herzegowina? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.178.86 (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

PROPAGANDA

Muslim/Bosniak/how-ever-they-call-themselves propaganda... Fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.80.74 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As a non-Bosnian, non-Herzogovinian, non-Muslim, non-Christian, non-Serb, non-Montenegrin, etc., etc., etc., I have one statement and one question. The statement is Ace's Fallacy: All things far from me are close together. The question is this: what ARE you people fighting about? Ace66.31.41.247 00:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, propaganda or not, the first paragraph looks dreadfully POV. Some citations and so on would help, books and other articles on the subject, for example. There's no need for name calling, certainly, but this article definitely needs to be more NPOV. -Kunal ^(Talk) 05:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the name calling. After all, anyone can make changes on Wikipedia =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.173.210 (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

there are no serbian, croats or bosniaks there. the haplogroup I2a2 count is the highest in herzegovina. so it's the same peoples. paleobalkan pelasgian, illyrian, macedonian,thracian peoples. that haplogroup is there this last 17 000 years. much before serbs, croats or bosnians( which are political constructs of the 19th-20th ct.).89.205.2.27 (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Herzegovina is inhabited by Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks. Genetic history is not the same as ethnicity. The same goes for any ethnic group or region.--Zoupan 15:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

that's a political construct. genetically those people are here before serbs or croats or bosniaks settled the region. it's a question of wrong nomenclature. that paleobalkan genome is present in serbia and croatia too, in bigger percentage than serbian-croatian R1a.89.205.2.27 (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct pronunciation?

Which syllabe should be stressed: HerzeGOVina or HerzegoVINa? Can someone solve this dilemma and add pronunciation information at the beginning of the article? APW (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

in English: hertsegovIna and hertsegOvina, in Bos/Cro/Mnt/Ser: hErtsegovina and hertsegOvina, depending on local dialect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.233.32 (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dilemma solved. I added both English pronunciations with sources, and fixed up the IPA usage that was there before. It now matches the article about "Bosnia and Herzegovina." For anyone who either doesn't know IPA or can't view it on screen, it shows us it can be stressed like HerzeGOvina with the "i" the same as in "kick," or can be stressed as HerzegoVIna with the "i" the same as in "machine." (Ejoty (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Yet stress placement is not indicated at all in [xɛ̌rtsɛɡov̞ina]. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Toponym

First sentence: "Bosnian, Croatian: Hercegovina, Serbian: Херцеговина" should be replaced by "Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian: Hercegovina, Serbian Cyrrilic: Херцеговина". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.231.6 (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This would be clear POV. The first can eventualy be Bosnian, Croatian: Herzegovina; Serbian: Херцеговина/Hercegovina. -- Imbris (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

first of all, why are you spelled HerZegovina (with "Z") in bosnian and croatian -> that`s not true, there`s "C" in both languages (HerCegovina, not HerZegovina]. the second: it is also "Hercegovina" in written serbian latin. so, to avoid idolatry, racism and other odd POVs and to keep thing objective, i belive we should state this: Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin latin and Serbian latin: Hercegovina, Montenegrin cyrillic and Serbian cyrillic: Херцеговина, or one might catch an idea that bosnian and croatian "Hercegovina" ortographically differs to serbian and montenegrin latin "Hercegovina" which is obviosly not true, don`t you agree?

You can sugarcoat it however you wish but the fact is that you strategy will not work. First of all the Montenegrin language is not official in Bosnia and Herzegovina and second of all Serbian cyrillic is the only official version of Serbian language in Serbia and also in Bosnia and Herzegovina (if you are in position of observing the fact that tables with official names of institutions, headers of documents, etc. for Serbian language is always in cyrillic script, in Bosnia and Herzegovina). So you have presented you personal POV view that Serbian should be listed twice and Montenegrin also twice. This is not as you put it objective, this is derogatory and harmful way of multiplying words to effect of creating dubios POV. -- Imbris (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Whotta mess. First of all, similary to regions like Macedonia, Srem/Srijem/Szerémség, Banat, Bačka/Bácska, Galicja, Dobruja, Transylvania and so on, and so on all across Europe, historical/geographical Hercegovina region is not just part of one state; Hercegovina is historical region splited after XIX c. Ottoman retreat between Bosnia, Montenegro and Serbia [here's the mideval map of the region http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Bosna.jpg] and that's why Montenegrin language should be included also. Montenegrin schoolars of that time coined the term Stara Hercegovina (meaning: In old times Herzegovina) to designate the difference between Montenegro propper and newly aquired part of Montenegro, wich belonged to historic Herzegovina, and that term is still in use. It shoud be clearly stated wheather this artical is about historical region of Hercegovina, or does it deals just with nowdays Bosnia-Herzegovina's part of Hercegovina exclusively; if this article deals only with BH-part of Herzegovina, there should be another Wikipedia entry which will deal with facts and history of all of the region. As of Serbian language: no, Serbian language officially uses both cyrillic AND latin scripts (zvanična pisma srpskog jezika) and that should NOT to be confused with official script of administration (službeni jezik i pismo Republike Srbije); wikipedia acknowledges the same, try serbian language link. So, try to act in interest of Wikipedia by stating the facts instead of playing ignorant and "creative" about one pretty well established language. Try to get any of Matica Srpska ortography handbooks and you will find that serbian language uses two scripts, without discrimination. Not only that, you'll find that in Serbia children learns to scribe in both scripts in serbian in state funded elementary schools, you'll find that latin is predominant script in public (periodicals and daylies, books, university books, advertising, tv, not to mention the Internet) as well as in private life when it comes to written language. Pretty much the same stands for Montenegrin language (except there's no official script of administration in Montenegro). At the end, since Bosnian language officially uses both scripts as well, i don't see any of reason not to include Bosnian Cyrillic, so, to avoid POV, please rephrase to: "Bosnian Latin, Croatian, Montenegrin latin and Serbian latin: Hercegovina, Bosnian Cyrillic, Montenegrin Cyrillic and Serbian Cyrillic: Херцеговина". Thanks.

Croatian Kosača family

"Following the weakening of the Bosnian crown after the death of Tvrtko I, powerful noblemen of the Croatian Kosača family, Grand Duke Sandalj Hranić and his nephew, Herzog Stefan Vukčić, ruled the Hum region independently (...)Bosnian duke Stjepan Vukčić Kosača called himself Herzog (duke) of Saint Sava" (and so on). I laughed my butt off. I will quote Wikipedia entry on House of Kosača: "The House of Kosača was a medieval Orthodox Bosnian family that ruled over Hum (Herzegovina)". Why would any Croatian nobleman called himself Herzog (duke) of Saint Sava (or Rastko Nemanjić, prince of Serbia), who was son of a founder of the Serbian medieval state, in the first place!? This article is ridiculous and biased by stupidity beyond belief.

not Sava but Saint Saba78.2.133.196 (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, smart*ss remark but, no, it was Rastko Nemanjić (Saint Sava or Saint Sabbas in Latin), son of the king Stefan Nemanja of Serbia, who 1190 - 1192 ruled Zachlumi (Zahumlje) in the name of his father. This article needs to be based on facts instead of stupidity of its authors.

Bla bla Serbia up to Tokyo. Yes, sweat dreams! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.228.197 (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC) ¸

Yes, Saint Saba (The Syrian)! Herzog is EXCLUSIVELY a western, Catholic title. Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick III, the ruler of the greatest catholic state, gave the title to Stjepan Kosača. It is impossible that he connect the title with Rastko Nemanjić, who is honored ONLY by Serbs, while Syrian Saint Saba is honored by ALL Christians. So, Herzog of saint Sava (Nemanjić) is like wooden iron, a "stupidity beyond belief". 89.164.39.254 (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead

What's Herzegovina? I can't tell from the lead, although there are clues here and in the Categories at the bottom that it's some kind of "geographical region" in Europe perhaps, bordered by some other names I'm unfamiliar with. --64.149.42.238 (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Princedom of Bosnia

Princedom of Bosnia

Where is the reliable source for the "Princedom of Bosnia". I have found zero mentions of a "Princedom of Bosnia" in Google Books, and a total of 9 (!) Google results for it, none of them qualifying as reliable, third-party sources. Since the phrase itself is essentially never used, it is original research to use it.

Similarly, there is no source given for the expression of opinion "The first theory is more plausible not only linguistically, but legally as well".

I am removing this OR from the article. Of course, if someone can find reliable, third-party sources for this, they should be used. --Macrakis (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense, we can state the obvious. Besides, summaries of information are the idea of an encyclopedia. Returning the statement. 217.197.142.16 (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, none of that is "obvious". It is tendentious and unsupported by sources. Summaries of information are not the same as "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources", which WP calls synthesis, and is considered original research. --Macrakis (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit-war over old broken ver.

There is tendency to edit-war on this article over its old and broken version: lots of text was referenced, some claims were far from being neutral, some fact were omitted, and few other things. I tried to fix some of ails, but I am getting reverted without any explanations why my edits are categorically unacceptable.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that edits must be discussed or properly summarised(editor WalterII doesn't do that), so I agree with editor Santasa99 that there must be some explanation. This does not mean that questionable information's are entered to the article but there must be some order. Ultimately we are all interested in the quality of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)