Colonel William A. Phillips

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 Bosnian Americans 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. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sulejman Talovic is not a notable Bosnian American since a few years from now know one will remember him even though they will still remember his victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.27.104.3 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you do not get to decide what makes a person "notable" or not, that is up to the administrators and seeing how they feel that his article is good enough to be placed on wikipedia then he is considered notable. Although he may not be the best representation of a bosnian american his link on this page is very relavent.--Joebengo 20:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, not sure how to format this, but Atlanta certain does not have that largest number of Bosnian Americans in the US. That is St. Louis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.229.175 (talk) 06:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there are nor Bosnian and Herzegovinian Americans, nor Bosnian Americans according to the American Statistics. The entire issue would be solved if the name was Bosniak Americans. Then we would know where we are standing.

Also the Google search cannot be used as a definite measurment of each and every fact. In Bosnia and Herzegovina they speak of Bosnian-Herzegovinian politicians, actors, etc. - Not of Bosnian xyz. Some use Bosnian xyz to describe geography of Bosnia or Herzegovinian to describe geography of Herzegovina but for the people they use both names conjuctivly.

There cannot be any doubt that speaking of Bosnian Americans only we are making a big mistake, I do not know what is the angle of Producer's in all of this.

Imbris (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to a request placed at Third Opinion. "Bosniak" refers specifically to the Muslims of BiH, so it should not be used for all inhabitants. For the latter, it is customary to use "Bosnian" (e.g., this publication by the U.S. State Department); I've never seen the term "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" used before and it's uncommon for such long and unwieldy adjectival formulations to be used in English. Accordingly, Bosnian American and Bosniak American would be proper forms, with the latter a subset of the former. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A forced statistical POV doesn't mean that the Herzegovinians should be deleted from the content of the article. What Wiki policy says that. The title only refer to the most common phrase that a end-user would type in the search engine, this has no merit over the content of the article. Producer is highly biased towards the issue by dropping Herzegovinians from the title even if that would be the most correct title and even if the search engine would produce the same end result for the end user who would misguidedly type Bosnian American in the search box.

Imbris (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am responding to a request for a Third Opinion. I appreciate the opportunity to help out. I note that I have not previously edited Bosnian American, and I am not acquainted with the two editors in the current dispute. In responding to the request, I have read this (and related) entries, and I have closely scrutinized the editing history of both Bosnian American and this talk page.

I understand that a consensus has already been achieved that the article name here will be Bosnian American, not Bosnian-Herzegovinian American. I must accept that consensus as a given. The present dispute, as I understand it, concerns whether the text of the article should use either the term Bosnian American or the term Bosnian and Herzegovinian Americans. In my considered third opinion, the consensus to name the article Bosnian American supports the general usage of Bosnian American in the article itself. Indeed, it would seem odd for an article about Bosnian Americans to refer repeatedly, and without explanation, to Bosnian and Herzegovinian Americans in each and every instance. That said, I quite like the way that the lede of the article—as it is presently composed, anyway—begins with the observation that Bosnian Americans trace their ancestry to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

There is probably middle ground between the two approaches, too, and I encourage you to consider it. If there are notable "Bosnian Americans" who identify as Herzegovinian primarily, that could be noted in the entry. I also see nothing wrong with adding a sentence or two to the entry noting that there remains a continuing distinction between Bosnians and Herzegovinians (although—at least according to Bosnia and Herzegovina—that distinction is "maintained as a regional, rather than an ethnic[,] distinction"). It would be a rare case, indeed, when too much accurate information was a problem for our project.

I offer my thanks to User:PRODUCER and User:Imbris for their contributions to this and related entries. You are doing good work, and I encourage you not to succumb to edit-warring and incivility but to engage constructively and find middle ground.

Best wishes! GreenGourd (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Bosnian and also Herzegovinian is just regional and not ethnic then the article should be Bosniak American and not Bosnian American, that would settle the issue completely, but PRODUCER is by unknown reasons not interested in using the most clarifying way of displaying the information. He belives that the article should be about Bosnian American in the manner of it being really about Bosniak Americans.

It is also not true that Herzegovinians is only the regional name, people from Herzegovina tend to use is as its ethnic origin also, especially when they go outside the Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The entire ordeal is based on biased interpretation of shorthened form of a regional denomination within the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is not fair, nor represents the entire Bosnian and Herzegovinian corpus.

Also the State Department of the USA has not determined the fashion Bosnian Americans anywhere.

We can agree that the Bosnians and Herzegovinians should be represented in the text of the article, at least in the form of subsection titles and other non esential features, and also at least once on the text of the article.

Also I do not see why would the end-user be astonished to see the term Bosnian and Herzegovinian American in the article when all is explained in the lede.

Imbris (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't touched the languages or religions so you can stop with the accusations. As Biruitorul stated "English uses "Bosnian" as an adjective for Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the "Herzegovina" part implied but not stated outright." Why not change Bosnian Croat and Bosnian Serb to Bosnian Herzegovinian Croat and Bosnian Herzegovinian Serb? Why isn't there a Bosnian Herzegovinians article? You cant have double standards. The suggestion of creating Herzegovinian American is akin to making a Dalmatian American article; pure nonsense. You failed to keep the article title BH Americans and now you are trying to push your POV within the article itself. PRODUCER (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made an earlier attempt to respond to the request placed at Third Opinion, but unfortunately the discussion got forked off into another section. Although GreenGourd has addressed the issue more substantively, there appears to remain some misunderstandings. First, "Bosniak American" would not be a good idea since in English, "Bosniak" refers specifically to the Muslims of BiH, so it cannot be used for all inhabitants.

It is customary in English to use the word "Bosnian" to refer to the inhabitants of BiH in general. It is not due to a matter of bias or intentional slight of Herzegovinians, but rather to the tendency for English-speakers to avoid using long, unwieldy, awkward-sounding adjectival terms. I've never seen the term "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" used before, nor anything like it. The U.S. State Department does not determine what designations are used, but follows conventional usage. (See this State Dept. publication for an example of what it uses in this case: "Bosnian".) It’s actually more unfortunate for non-Herzegovinian Bosnians, since there is now no clear distinction between a native of BiH and one of Bosnia proper. It is, however, what has come to be – and WP:UE calls for us to use the most common English version of the name, so we’re stuck with "Bosnian" for both.

I should further note that there is not much historical usage of "hyphenated American" designations like "Bosnian American" or "Herzegovinian American". Until the breakup of Yugoslavia, such individuals were more likely to be identified as Yugoslav or even Serbo-Croatian.

I hope this helps to clarify some of the issues being addressed here. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no further discussion, I am going to unwatch this page. If I am needed to discuss something, please let me know on my Talk page. I hope I have been of useful assistance. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am unwatching the talk page. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. If you think my or Askari Mark's contribution was useful, please consider supporting WP:30. Best wishes! GreenGourd (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged a section that appears to have been lifted from the Encyclopedia of Chicago.99.73.137.73 (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page has so many cardinal errors I just can't figure out where to start.

1) Rod Blagojevich should be in Serbian section, because he is not Bosnian American. He is Serbian American.

2) Bosnians are not ethnic group.

3) And if you are really putting Bosnians as a sort of ethnic group(!?) there should be in language section, except Bosnian language, also Serbian and Croatian. Constitutional languages of BiH are Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian. (surely Rod blagojevich doesn't speak Bosnian but Serbian language as his second) Also, Bosnia and Herzegovina has three constitutional ethnic groups: Bosniaks, Serbs and Croatians. There is an article about Croatian Americans where are mentioned people whose origin is from Bosnia and Herzegovina but are part of Croatian ethnicity. Also the same thing is with article of Serbian Americans. There is no article about Bosniak Americans and here, it should be. Most of this article is about Americans of Bosniak ethnicity, with many errors, so good thing would be to rename it from Bosnian Americans to Bosniak Americans and clear the whole article from errors.

4) This whole article is full of people who are not ethnic Bosnians.

5) Also, in here, where I found this article, errors, errors, errors... Bosnians or herzegovinians are not slavic subgroup, nor ethnic group. They are territorial demonym, like Californians, New Yorkers, Dalmatians, Slavonians etc. etc. etc.

--Éber Donn (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bosnian Americans. 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/20140815134909/http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk to http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greater St. Louis has the highest Bosnian American population, according to BBC which is a reliable source, in a article last year so that shows it didn’t change in 2019, here’s a link to the article https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20220117-st-louis-the-us-city-transformed-by-heartbreak please do not falsely change anymore information, Anonymous user 2601:183:4081:3730:48a1 Yepezyepez (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]