This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

When exactly did the army control change? "Recently" is going to be wrong soon, there should be a date. Key45 21:40, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I wanted to find this but it seems surprisingly difficult. The best references I found are:

• [1] a report on March 2003 intentions of the High Representative
• [2] a brief news item on Sept. 2003 decisions by the High Representative, saying the united army command will go live on January 1st, 2004
• [3] March 2004 speech by the President of the Presidency, talking about reforms that will open the path towards membership in the Partnership for Peace, and later NATO
• [4] April 2003 talk about reforms and some laws being passed by the HR
• [5] Federation Defence minister interview that mentions a joint ministry and joint army command being established through 2003 and 2004, as well as other things

Overall, google has pretty much failed me... :) -- Joy [shallot] 22:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[6] Bosnia's first unified army platoon deployed to Iraq. Cordless Larry 08:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It changed when the constitution changed. This, in the legal system of B&H and its entities is the only relevant date. I'll research it, but if someone has time before can look it up on the parliamentary websites of which there are three. The Republika Srpska one is lame and hates Mozilla, but the other two are palatable. -- Ogidog 04:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The claim that the Brcko District is not part of either the Federation or Republika Srpska might de facto be true (that is how things are run on the ground), but de iure it is false. If the Brcko District is not part of either entity, this would imply that the District is in fact the third entity. This would be a major breach of the general framework of the Dayton peace agreement (and the constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina), which states that the country is internally composed of only two entities. Also, the Brcko District as 'not part of either entity' would make the territorial formula agreed at Dayton (49% of Bosnia-Herzegovina as Republika Srpska, 51% as the Federation) unworkable. OHR, Office of the High Representative ( http://www.ohr.int), provided a clarification on the status of the Brcko District, stating that the District is in fact a condominium of both entities. This means that the territory of the District is shared by both entities, although the entities exercise no executive power there. In other words, the Brcko District territory is both Republika Srpska and the Federation. Technically, this would apply to the whole territory of the District - in that way, there is no third entity, and 49-51% formula is (somehow) preserved. That said, it should be pointed out that the Brcko District was proclaimed on the whole territory of the prewar Brcko municipality. According to the Dayton map, 42% of the prewar Brcko municipality (including the town of Brcko) ended up in the Republika Srpska, while 58% of the prewar Brcko municipality ended up in the Federation. Although the Brcko District was proclaimed in 1999, IEBL (Inter Entity Boundary Line) within its territory was never officially abolished; IEBL plays no administrative function within the District, except to mark the line beyond which the Bosnian Serb Army (Vojska Republike Srpske) traveling through the District can not go (and vice versa for the Federation Army). Thus, it remains unclear how the entities hold the condominium over the whole District if the IEBL still exists on the books, and the District was created out of uneven chunks of both entity's territory. Given the fact that the Republika Srpska never officially accepted the arbitration result (one of the reasons IEBL was never officially abolished), the only solution is to show the Republika Srpska territory within the Brcko District (42% of it) on the Republika Srpska entity map, but color it differently, and the same formula should be used vis-à-vis the Federation territory within the Brcko District (58% of it) on the Federation entity map. When you put all of this together, you have a map of Bosnia-Herzegovina showing only two entities but also acknowledging the existence of the Brcko District - the neutral position.

p.s.

The 'condominium' idea or the Brcko District is demonstrated by the way in which people declare themselves within the District. Citizens of the District have a right to hold entity citizenship of either Republika Srpska or the Federation, and have the right to vote on their entity's elections, although they are banned from serving in either entity's army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.98.134.34 ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 15 January 2005 (UTC)

Good job -- good explanation!!! -- Ogidog 04:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, everybody

I made some new municipality location maps baceuse existing ones are too small and with too low resolution. Please, comment here: Image talk:BH municipality location.gif.

-- Ante Perkovic 22:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is much less detailed than the Republika Srpska one (Republika Srpska being the other entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina). Cordless larry 02:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the Republika Srpska page then to the Federation page there needs to be an expansion for the page. Both make up Bosnia and Herzegovina so the Federation should have a great deal to talk about too. Let us even the score and for once give them equality in an unequal world. Let not the injustices of the world come to Wikipedia. tduwhs 22:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this article is still less detailed than Republika Srpska, I added it to the Requests for expansion page. Cordless Larry 17:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

These pop. figures seem to be inflated. Sarajevo's population shrank after the war. Seven hundred thousand people means that its pop. almost doubled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.157.231 ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the source for the population figures, and it does correspond to what we have here, but you're right, all of the 2006 figures seems odd, and the table of figures says they're a 'calculation'. The Sarajevo article, on the other hand, says this:

Since no official census has been taken since 1991, the exact population of Sarajevo cannot be known. However, the latest estimates from the Sarajevo Canton government, dating from mid-2004, are generally thought to be fairly accurate. They put the total population of the city of Sarajevo at 400,000 residents and the number of people in the greater Sarajevo region at 600,000.

Cordless Larry 10:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How about replacing the figures with these? Cordless Larry 16:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

September has passed - and the article says that the Flag, Croat-of-Arms and Anthem (is there an anthem at all?)'s status will be resolved in the past month. -- PaxEquilibrium 19:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The ruling only states that the Law on Coat of Arms etc. is not in conformance with Article II.4 of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it does not state explicitly in what way. -- Branislav Jovanovic 07:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please repost the flag and the coat of arms here. I cannot find it. The Constitutional Court did indeed rule that these are not constitutional, however, subsequent to the appeal by the Federal Parliament in Januar of 2007, the Court needs to repost its decision on the Official Gazette (expected in March of this year) for the two insignia to become unofficial. While some members of government (the Parliament's president) have already removed these symbols, the Federal Government as well as most Cantons still display all insignia and will do so until the Gazette has been published. Let's keep this current. Boismortier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boismortier ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

To Ivan Kricancic!

Since there has NOT been conducted any serious cencus in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina since the war, this is only estimates. Both mine, yours and everyone else is only estimates. But I have calculated and I find this very logical.

there are almost 100 % croats in zapadna hercegovina where it lives around 80 000 according to my source. And it lives around 100 000 croats in hercegovacki neretvanski kanton since you makes up 49 % of the cantons population. You are 40 000 in livanjski kanton and around 90 000 in srednjo bosanski kanton where you make up around 40 % of the population. In posavski kanton you make up around 25 000 of around 40 000 citizens in that canton. And in rest of Federacija you make up around 60 000 (tuzla, zenica - doboj, sarajevski, podrinjski, and unski-sanski kanton).

Summarum: 80 000 + 40 000 + 100 000 + 90 000 + 25 000 + 60 000 = 395 000.

We bosniaks make up 1 850 000 in federacija which is around 80 %.

Alkalada 23:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have tried to locate a source Alkalada, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to revert, as the source provided makes no reference to ethnic affiliation of any sort. While the population of Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats has most likely changed from the current estimates on the article, we shouldn't change them until we find a source stating/estimating the population of the different groups. If a source can be found on the current ethnic population of the different cantons, we could then use that data plus the population data in the source you have provided to come to an accurate estimate. On another topic, thank you for being more civil and calm than you were before; I think you'll now be able to work constructively with other editors. Keep it up! — King Ivan 06:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ivan, your so called estimated population doesnt neither refere to 100 % reliable source. But I think we all are clear that bosniaks make up 60 % of central bosnia canton since we make majority in the municipalities of bugojno, travnik, gornji and donji vakuf and fojnica and theese municipalities is much more populated than kiseljak, kresevo, vitez and dobretici where croats make majority. Jajce, novi travnik, and busovaca is divided.

In Zenica-doboj we are all clear that bosniaks make up little more than 90 % since croats have small enclave like zepce and usora.

In tuzla canton we make up 95 %. And in herc-ner it is completely divided since we have majority in jablanica, konjic and 3 eastern mostar municipalities. Stolac is divided.

In una-sana and sarajevo there are barely any croats left.

I will revert again. Btw... look at the lates election.

In FBIH bosniak parties got 78 % while there are many bosniaks who voted for non bosniak party as stranka radon za boljitak and others. Alkalada 09:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Estimates based purely on your own speculation cannot be added. — King Ivan 05:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, your estimates is too based on purely speculation. I am going to revert again. Alkalada 11:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Why there is no flag nor coat of arms in the infobox in the Wikpedia article about FBiH, but there are both flag and coat of arms in the infobox in the Wikpedia article about Srpska, if the Constitutional Court decision that banned all of them was the same?-- MaGioZal 06:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A list of neighbouring countries in the beginning of the article would be superb. - Yupik 22:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Federaion isn't a country though, so would this be suitable? Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to talk about population then we must do it on justificational bases. First of all I think it is pretty clear that bosniaks form 80 % of the population and second is that bosniaks ARE primarily inhabitants of this entity, the croats isnt simply because they form 17 % of population and they are a clear minority.

The croats have same status in the Federation as bosniaks and croats have in Republika Srpska. Bosnianjustice ( talk) 16:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Where did you find the numbers for the estimated percentage with bosniaks and croats? We need a source. -- Litany ( talk) 22:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The population data provided by this post is evasive. Simple calculus of the data will show that if the Bosniaks are 80% in the 2,5 mil population of the Federation and 10,7% in the 1,411 mil population of the Srpska Respublica, the overall percentage of the Bosniacs in BiH is 55,7. Moreover, if the Croats are 14% in the Federation and 0,9% in R Srpska, they are 9,4% in BiH. Please correct the data ! Thanks ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.150.157 ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Population stats are extremely unreliable. There hasn't been population census in Bosnia since... well, 1990. All figures are simply estimates, and they are unrelizable. Bosniak ( talk) 07:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Question: Why is it that a census has not taken place since 1990? I mean, the war ended in 1995 (arguably 1996) and it's been more than ten years since any major conflicts took place in that area. In whose interest is it that a census doesn't take place? -- GOD OF JUSTICE 02:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a good article that discusses this very issue here. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Demographics from 1996, 1996 (Postwar)

In 1996, the population of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina numbered 2,444,665 inhabitants, including:

   * Bosniaks = 1,773,566 (72.5%)
   * Croats = 556,289 (22.8%)
   * Serbs = 56,618 (2.3%)
   * others = 58,192 (2.4%)

there are more 'others' than 'Serbs' What could have caused that,hmm? Genocide! We need a new topic in the main page that pretty much spells it out for readers. Who is against that and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rndxcl ( talk • contribs) 06:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we have a section for economy, as it will be a good comparison for RS vs Fed economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.209.111 ( talk) 18:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It would be great to do some stats on the economy. Bosniak ( talk) 07:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Would be better if we get Economy + Army for both of them. And a prediction on which entity would succeed in all out war, too. Is anybody aware of such things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rndxcl ( talk • contribs) 04:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The article should maybe mention that there have been repeated allegations by the local Catholic Cardinal that post-War Bosnia was essentially divided into two zones, one for the Eastern Orthodox, and one for other religious groups such as Catholics and Sunni Muslims. Now, the Cardinal says that in the Eastern Orthodox area, Catholics have not been able to return to their former homes, while in the Federation region, there have been many restrictions on the right to build churches, while mosques are simultaneously allowed to be built without any government obstructions. [7] ADM ( talk) 15:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked Cyrillic was also an official script in the country! Keep it on the page. Regardless of if its not used in that part of the country. We don't want to succumb to nationalistic fever here. Be objective people. Also where is the flag and arms?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.28.173 ( talk) 01:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please remove the Cyrillic from the title. It has no place in it. We are discussing the federation of BIH and that is not the Serbian republic. Everyone knows that Croatians and Bosniaks use only Latinic because of their contact to western world and only Serbians still use old communist writing systems. They can have Cyrillic on their own sites buit not here, or else we will allow any old Serb nationalist to go round putting cyrillic on all wiki sites. Barbaric 22:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Barbaric, please refrain from letting your nationalistic and barbaric instincts polute the Wikipedia project. Cyrillic is the communist writting system? A little research of your own would help. Be happy that 'old Serbs' mother gave birth to such a genius as Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic and that you too can write and read in the most sophisticated manner in the world, no matter what alphabet. Stop spreading your hateful Bosniak/Ustasha nationalistic propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.218.226 ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Officially B-H uses both so why not include it in the title. It makes sense. The fact that its never employed in use in the federation is explained in the culture and language section of the article one would suppose. Why is the supposed banned flag and arms still being presented as the official flag and arms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.212.71.106 ( talk) 09:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not wrong flag. The parliament made a law 5 yrs ago in wich the former Flag of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was replaced by the state flag to represent all three constutive nations. -- Wusten fuchs 17:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs, its obvious from your edits that you think the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was some sort of "union" between the RBiH and Herzeg-Bosnia. It was no such thing. the FBiH was founded as a subdivision of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In other words, Herzeg-Bosnia was integrated into, not with, the RBiH, with the institution of the FBiH subdivision. This was a major concession to the Americans on the part of Tudjman, our Glorious Leader, who in return got the green line to eliminate the Krajina. -- Director ( talk) 15:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you are right. It's fine now. I saw the first Constitution of the Federation. -- Wusten fuchs 15:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, and Dayton was not fully implemented until 1998. The RBiH was only reorganized as BiH then. -- Director ( talk) 16:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There are three maps all showing, some with more details. Which is best? -- Bruce Hall ( talk) 11:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The third one for now. Maps in the infobox have little detail and simply show the area in question in a darker tone than the rest, like the map in Baden-Württemberg for example. I plan on making new maps for both entities following this standard. --◅ PRODUCER ( TALK) 12:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

User Wüstenfuchs wrote: "2012 CALCULATION without any source? The source is not reliable, and we have a census which is onyl 2 years old."

Well, seems that we have two problems here:

1. The first problem is this template that you made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Largest_towns_of_the_Federation_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina You listed that source for that template is this: http://www.fzs.ba/saopcenja/2010/14.2.1.pdf That is a problem because this source list only population of cantons and municipalities, but not of cities and towns. In template, you used data for municipalities and presented this as data for towns. This is simply wrong and incorrect and I will remove that template from the article until you fix it - you should either use data for towns there or you should made new template for municipalities where you will use data from mentioned source.

2. I do not know are data from world gazetteer web site accurate or not, but so far, it is only source for which I know that provide data for urban population of cities and towns in FBIH (We already saw that source that you used for template speaks about completely different thing). I will, therefore, reintroduce data from world gazetteer web site and if you find better data in some other source, you are free to replace data from world gazetteer web site. However, please do not misuse data about municipal populations and please do not present this data as data for urban populations. PANONIAN 07:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well that is the list of largest towns or municipalities. Your '12 source is simply unrealistic because towns have larger population then the whole municipality. -- Wüstenfuchs 13:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wüstenfuchs, this source lists population of municipalities and this source lists urban population of cities and towns (both sources are clearly stating what they listing). Also, where exactly "towns have larger population then the whole municipality"? We can check this in some example: here, town of Bihać have population of 37,511 and here municipality of Bihać have population of 61,358. So, both sources are corresponding well one with another. PANONIAN 06:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

PANONIAN, I made I mistake... problem solved. -- Wüstenfuchs 21:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This is neither historical nor scientific article but anti-Serb article with horrible language of hate. It is ridiculous to the point that Serbs are guilty for disturbed "harmony of love" between Bosnian Muslims and Croatians. It does not reflect ethnic cleanse of Serbs from Federation of BIH where Serbs reduced in number for more then 75% according to UN sources. It does not reflect latent hate between Croatians and Bosniaks present even today 18 years after war was over and Serbs expelled from cities like Mostar, deeply divided till today. As it can also be seen site is ruled by Croatians and Bosnian Muslims who are providing "un-biased" view :-), sourced in documents from NATO countries that forcefully forged alliance of the two in 1994 to fight against Serbs as can be checked in Wiki-pages on Dayton agreement and many other sources on this very wikipedia. There is no neutrality of views, there is admin autocracy, one sided views and hate speech everywhere.

Please do not offend Greek language. Call this WIKI-NONSENSE or WIKI-NATOEDUCATION or WIKI-CROATOBOSNIAKPEDIA. Its anyhow your Education! `````````````````````````` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.148.50.236 ( talk) 22:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC) 84.148.50.236 ( talk) 22:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone with only an academic command of English, probably someone from one of the former Yugoslav republics (which makes sense), wrote this, judging on vocabulary and how prepositions are used. It needs a major cleanup. It looks like someone took the Russian (or some Slavic language) version of this article and ran it through Google Translate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.173.46 ( talk) 02:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

" Bosnian", " Croatian", and " Serbian" are "standardized varieties of the Serbo-Croatian language". In some articles only one of the three standardized varieties is relevant - here, all three are. Hence here it is imo absurd beyond the point of reasonable discussion to list the three varieties of the same language in the lead sentence. Also please note: the translations listed in the lead sentence have nothing to do with "official" status of this language or that, but are simply there to provide relevant translations. -- Director ( talk) 19:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is ridicolous. It reminds me of western propaganda (Window problem). It does not contain lies, but it does not contain the truth about ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Federation of BiH.

I am Serb, so I know that somebody will say :"He has biased views", but this article reminds me of during-and-post-war national television channels. They were showing only one side of the coin.

Croat only talked about facts that they fled, and were getting to the minority, and how Serbs and Muslims killed them. Bosniaks were wheeping for their dead, and bulging and stretching the numbers of killed or missing (mainly in Srebrenica). All for Western propaganda with goal of unitary BiH. Serbs were denying crimes (mainly Srebrenica), and talking trash about West. NATO bombings of Republika Srpska and Srbija also helped. Politicians bragged about Republika Srpska independence.

All in all, this is accurate article, but it is Closed Window Croat-Muslim(Bosniak) propaganda. Maybe this article is notdoing of neither Croat nor Bosniak, but of some Western media biased person that has heard all this in news and other media.

I hope you will fix the article. Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.143.145 ( talk) 17:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear user! Thank you so much for your constructive comment. It would indeed be very nice if the article could become less Westernly biased, just as you are requesting. You are of course more than welcome to add your contributions to the article so it can tell more of the truth and become less biased. Wikipedia is all about that. The important thing to remember is just to keep it neutral (who said what, who has what opinion etc.), and to supply reliable sources for every statement, which is especially important for a controversial subject like this. But also remember that people like you will be more likely to know what is missing and find good sources than people from the West are, as we in the West – as you say – have been informed in a quite biased way through our media. So we might not even know what is missing and what the other side of the coin looks like. Therefore, please help us get a more nuanced view. But we still need reliable sources. And while I do realize that they can be hard to find, especially in English due to the Western bias, the time spent by searching for them and adding them will help people in the West get a more nuanced picture.

I also understand that perhaps you will find it difficult to write in a detached and neutral way about it, as you probably still have lots of feelings about what happened; maybe you even lost loved ones. But in case you add something that might be a bit too biased towards the other side of the coin, other Wikipedians will probably help by adjusting the wording to make it more neutral. In any case: You are so welcome to add the missing information about how it all looked like seen from the Serbian side. I do agree that the media have been quite biased (after all, the West was a part in the conflict) and we need to know more of the full, true story about what happened.

If you want, you can also use the talk page here to suggest text to add as well as sources to use, and then the rest of us can help with constructive comments.

Thank you again for your critique of the article. Hope to hear more from you! -- Jhertel ( talk) 15:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061118064723/http://www.ohr.int:80/ohr-offices/brcko/gen-info/default.asp?content_id=5528 to http://www.ohr.int/ohr-offices/brcko/gen-info/default.asp?content_id=5528
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070310215629/http://www.ohr.int:80/ohr-offices/brcko/default.asp?content_id=5358 to http://www.ohr.int/ohr-offices/brcko/default.asp?content_id=5358

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101013141017/https://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/media-releases/2010/europe/federation-of-bosnia-and-herzegovina%e2%80%93a-parallel-crisis.aspx to http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/media-releases/2010/europe/federation-of-bosnia-and-herzegovina%E2%80%93a-parallel-crisis.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511043530/http://www.fzs.ba/saopcenja/2011/14.2.1.pdf to http://www.fzs.ba/saopcenja/2011/14.2.1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313163754/http://www.ccbh.ba:80/eng/press/index.php?pid=349&sta=3&pkat=507 to http://www.ccbh.ba/eng/press/index.php?pid=349&sta=3&pkat=507

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/media-releases/2010/europe/federation-of-bosnia-and-herzegovina%E2%80%93a-parallel-crisis.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ccbh.ba/eng/press/index.php?pid=349&sta=3&pkat=507
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019192622/http://dalje.com/en-world/muslim-outcry-over-bosnian-serbs-state-symbols/164758 to http://dalje.com/en-world/muslim-outcry-over-bosnian-serbs-state-symbols/164758

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)