This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bosnia and Herzegovina Low‑importance Inter-Entity Boundary Line is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The reason why I included the admiral's remark was because in contrast to the Vance-Owen plan, the GFAP (Dayton) did create 2x entities separated along ethnic lines within one state. Although BiH (I am sure) will succeed and prosper now, I believe that due to this split, BiH can only really aspire to the Belgium state model with most institutions (less the military) remaining separate right upto the presidency. This is why the remark may have historical resonance in the future.

May well be, but why is his personal remark about that important? Nikola 06:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

At the time the IEBL was a hot potato. It is also one of the few lines attributed to COMIFOR.

OK, I be'd Bold. This is my first page move, so hopefully I wasn't too bold. I re-renamed this article back from Inter-Entity Boundary Line (BiH) to Inter-Entity Boundary Line. I reasoned that appending a parenthetical BiH (the 3-letter code for Bosnia and Herzegovina) doesn't add anything to the article: all Google hits for "Inter-Entity Boundary Line (BiH)" were scraped from Wikipedia, so the "BiH" doesn't appear to be a common, let alone official, part of the name. Also, there appears to be only one Inter-Entity Boundary Line in the world, so we don't need the "(BiH)" to resolve some ambiguity. Again, this is my first page move, so fell free to berate gently admonish me on my talk page if I caused something to go horribly awry. Thanks! Fried Gold ( talk) 07:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Could information be added as to what the line is called in the local Western South Slavic diasystem speak? -- 80.164.41.45 ( talk) 00:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

There are three maps that show the line:

The first seems to provide visually the most information including cities and conton boundaries, and so I chose that for this article. Should we use another? -- Bruce Hall ( talk) 11:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inter-Entity Boundary Line. 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/20060624050152/http://www.afsouth.nato.int/transcripts/AdmLeighton170796.htm to http://www.afsouth.nato.int/transcripts/AdmLeighton170796.htm

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) 17:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply