Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Duja (talk | contribs) at 16:32, 7 February 2007 (→On what to do with unconstitutional symbols: - re to Osli.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Republika Srpska. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Republika Srpska at the Reference desk.

Template:TrollWarning

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

• 2004 discussion is archived at /Archive 1.
• 2005 discussion is archived at /Archive 2.
• Talk:Republika Srpska/Archive 3 (?? - 00:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC))

Mediation

As the result of a bi-lateral agreement (see archive three) between FreedonNadd and Emir Arven, the compromise version will read:

The population of non-Serbs has declined significantly since 1991, while the number of Serbs increased dramatically. This was caused by the ethnic cleansing of non-Serb population, the influx of Bosnian Serb refugees from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina due to Bosnian war (1992-1995) and Croatian Serb refugees from Croatia due to Croatian war (1991-1995). Bosnian Serb resettlement policy also played a part, and some resettlement took place after the war following the Dayton Peace Agreement, subsequent to setting political boundaries (IEBL).

Thanks everyone for taking part in this mediation, I'm glad we could reach consensus :) Happy future editing! - FrancisTyers 00:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank Mediation Cabal in general and FrancisTyers in particular for all the help in reaching a compromise. As a last act of our little drama, I would invite him to remove NPOV sign from the population segment of the article and insert the consensus version. Thank you Francis for your time and patience!--FreedonNadd 00:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Done, with pleasure :) - FrancisTyers 00:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I also have to thank Francis for his efforts and help that he offered.--Emir Arven 00:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You are both welcome - Molim i drugi put (I think) :) - FrancisTyers 00:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This third version is brilliant, but who should include it into the article? Thanks Francis Tyers! --HolyRomanEmperor 20:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I am speaking out for the serbs. The reason for the much higher population of serbs in republika srpska after the war is because of ethnic cleansing that occured on both sides. For instance the federations population of serbs went down after the war and the republika's went up. This is because of the ethnic cleansing of serbs, bosniaks and croats throughout bosna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.98.186 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Link to Greater Serbia article

The link to Greater Serbia article do not belong into Republika Srpska article. If the some minnor political options in neighbouring country claim this territory, that does not mean that we have to write this here. Should we into article about Transylvania to post a link to Greater Hungary article because of the same reson. We should to have serious geographical articles about those territories, which will be not influenced by childish "Greater" ideas. PANONIAN (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Panonian: I looked at that Greater Serbia article, and I think that a large part of its contents (including the question where exactly is the article map coming from) could not realistically survive the 'source sifting' method we witnessed here courtesy of Mediation Cabal...--FreedonNadd 07:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Its a GFDL map based on the Virovitica-Karlovac-Karlobag line. What is there to dispute? Asim Led 23:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that any article that is headed "Creation of Republika Srpska" needs to mention the Greater Serbia project since if it were not for the

cc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairview360 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am new to Misplaced Pages. It appears I have stepped into a hornet's nest of competing views. I am not familiar with how Misplaced Pages brings debate to concensus, but it appears that there is a need here for Misplaced Pages's article on Republika Srpska to mention the Greater Serbia project. Any article purports to explain the "creation of RS" ought to mention the Greater Serbia project because the political force behind the Greater Serbia project (Milosevic, Seselj, etc.) was essential to the creation of RS. I believe what is often lost and what the initiator of this discussion string (Panonian?) wants to emphasize is the legitimate grievances of Bosnian Serbs and their desire expressed in 1992 to remain a part of Yugoslavia. Both the desires of the Bosnian Serbs and the political force behind the Greater Serbia project emenating from Belgrade contributed to the creation of RS.

An accurate and comprehensive article by Misplaced Pages ought to mention what created RS if the article is to be titled "creation of RS". Furthermore, I believe any supporter of RS would be disingenuous if they were to claim that the ultimate goal was to create an independent Serb republic in Bosnia and that they just received some assistance from Serbia towards that goal. In fact, the ultimate goal was, and remains, annexing the part of Bosnia that is now RS to Serbia. I am not, with these words, passing judgement on the causes or forces behind the creation of RS. I am simply making what I believe to be an accurate observation.

Also, I do not understand why there is apparent objection to noting that military stockpiles in Serbia and Montenegro were part of tghe assistance provided from Belgrade to the RS military. The article already acknowledges that Belgrade supported the RS military. Where does one think that military assistance came from? The RS military was not sustained from stockpiles in Bosnia alone. So why not let the article read "armed and equipped from JNA stockpiles in Bosnia, Serbia, and Montenegro" or "from JNA stockpiles in Bosnia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia"?

Lastly, I would like to thank Misplaced Pages for providing a forum and process for establishing a common history that people can agree upon and to extend my respect and appreciation to the initiator of this discussion string (Panonian?) for engaging and maintaining this discussion. Sincerely, Fairview360

P.S. I write "(Panonian?)" because in addition to being new to Misplaced Pages, I am new to participating in "discussion strings" (I assume that is not what one calls them) and do not know if Panonian is the initiator or added comments later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairview360 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A million non-Serbs (?)

The 'Bosnian War' segment of the article has the following claim:

By 1994, the United Nations estimated that a million non-Serbs had been driven out from the territory controlled by Republika Srpska and by the spring of 1996, a United Nations census indicated that Serbs constituted 96.8% of the population of the republic.

Now, here is the United Nations statistical data from 1996 (obviously used in the article itself, at the end of the claim).

REPUBLIKA SRPSKA:

This statistical data shows that in 1991 there was not even one million non-Serbs in Republika Srpska territory to begin with. I propose we change "a million non-Serbs" to "hundreds of thousands of non-Serbs", because 'a million' claim has no base in reality... — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreedonNadd (talk • contribs) 00:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Republika Srpska Independence Userbox

Is it Possible to make an Userbox containing " Independence of Republika Srpska — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nexm0d (talk • contribs) 17:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

2005 Population estimate

I am interested in knowing what is the source of this paragraph:

In 2005, the population of Republika Srpska was estimated to stand at about 1,411,000 people, of whom Serbs constituted 1,247,900 people or 88.4% of the overall population, followed by 150,390 Bosniaks at 10.7%, and Croats constituted 12,710 people or 0.9%.

The demographis bulletin of the RS seems to suggest a much higher figure for the total population 1,471,000. --Savindan 18:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

One-word name of Republic of Srpska

sh: Republika Srpska (RS) = en: The Republic of Serbland = de: Republik Serbland

one-word name:
sh: Srpska = en, de: Serbland

(Srpski jezički priručnik, Beograd 2004)

some info here: http://www.rastko.org.yu/filologija/bbrboric-jezik/bbrboric-jezik5.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millosh (talk • contribs) 23:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Srpska - noun and adjective

You have said "using the previous precedents such as the word "hrvatska" (which means both "Hrvatska" - Croatia and "hrvatska" - Croatian as an adjective, f.), the word Srpska was also declared to be a proper noun". There is no precedent with the word "hrvatska". In Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian language almost every name of the state is both noun and adjective - Bugarska (Bulgaria), Madjarska (Hungary), Grcka (Greece), Njemacka (Germany), Francuska (France), Engleska (England), etc. So, the noun "Srpska" was not declared to be a noun. The noun Srpska, as the name of the state, the republic or the entity is completely based on language rules and the spirit of Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian language.

I propose that you either delete this part (from the words "because the word" to the words "declared to be a proper noun", or to explain the creation of names of states in Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian language.

Stevo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millosh (talk • contribs) 23:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Internet domain

About statement that SR domain is SURINAM :-)
Maybe as country code, but as YU domain is obsolete (there is no more any Yugoslavia) Serbia and Montenegro uses YU domain because we are legal sucessors and no solution for developed YU Internet domain to go to SM or SCG domain is offered.
Inside YU domain, SR.YU subodomain is used to denote part of Serbian institutions and organisations in Serbia
eg
Goverment of Serbia and Monetenegro www.gov.yu
Gouverment of Serbia www.sr.gov.yu
Gouverment of Monte Negro www.cg.gov.yu
Go ahead, check it.
So, usage of .SR.BA for Republic of Srpska can be viewed as proper in theior own right, not influenced by Serbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastavox (talk • contribs) 01:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Once Montenegro becomes independent, however, Serbia will not be able to get SR assigned as their country code, since that's already taken by Suriname. In fact, there's next to nothing left for Serbia that would start with "S"... —Nightstallion (?) 12:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We already have CS domain reserved, but since its hard to transit whole YU domain to CS (altough we could make a good domain sales to all those Counterstrike freaks :-) I believe we will just keep the old good YU domain ... like we still have JDP and JAT in Belgrade. Somet things slowly die :-) Dont worry, we wont become SURINAM, and I dunno what Montenigrins do. Dont forget its not WHEN but IF Montenegro becomes independent.

And here I am talking about subdomains, so it can be SR.BA just as it can be SR.YU, right? --Rastavox 03:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it's a "when", not an "if". ;) And I'm fairly certain that at some point there will *have* to be an official transition from .yu to another ccTLD... —Nightstallion (?) 05:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont know what makes you THAT sure, since they are divided society with same odds for both options. Plus its a loose state union where they have all attributes except forein attitude and army, where it costs much more to be indepedent (Serbia covers 95% of state budget, plus 50%+ montenigrins are somehow economicaly tied to Serbia - wheter study, emoloyed - independence would case multiply costs for them etc.).

Serbia and Montenegro - Serbia even if Monetenegro is separated - is legal sucessor of last Yugoslavia and can keep YU domain, as it keeps it now.

So ... think before your writte, OK? --Rastavox 06:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Official Languages

The official languages of the RS are Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian (or Bosniak, as Serbs insist it to be called) effectively, however, due to the inability to achieve compromise onthe name Bosnian (bosanski) vs. Bosniak (bošnjački), the official languages do not have a name in the Constitution of Republika Srpska, and they are instead listed as the languages of Serbs, Bosniaks, and Croats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogidog (talk • contribs) 07:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Citing constitution letter by letter is poor approach to this issue. But if you do want to pursue it than lets enforce all constitutional directives that are enforcable in RS. How about we start with the flag, coat of arms and hymn of Republika Srpska. They were all deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (a body with the supreme jurisdiction over both RS and FBiH), so let's remove those from the template as well. What do you think about that. --Dado 03:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Refusing to name the language is at issue. So is the flag etc. It should also be noted that it's deemed unconstitutonal in the RS. I've got no problem with that. --Ogidog 06:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning why it was ruled as such is simple, it is not inclusive of the 2 other constuient enthinicies (croats and moslems(, if anything we should have a footnote saying that Srpska flag and coat of arms has been ruled unconsitutional yet there are no other flags that have been created to replace this and that in fact the decision itself is most controversial. Druidlord 18:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

CRNA GORA HAD REFERENDUM,NOW SRPSKA DESERVE TO HAVE THE SAME RIGHT

Pusi k....,ko te j...,moze Srpska i bez tebe federacijo,federacijoooo Dzoni 02:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the english wikipedia, please speak english. Pure inuyasha 03:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

the translation of this was - Srspka can do without the MoslemCroat Federation since Montenegro got the same right (of self determination) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.15.13 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Should the title of this page be in English?

i.e. Serb Republic--Greasysteve13 03:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No it shouldnt Dzoni 03:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Serb Republic redirects here anyway.--Greasysteve13 04:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Because its name is Republika Srpska,not Serb Republic...Its the same reason that we have article called Boris Tadić,not Boris Tadic.Name of the republic is Republika Srpska,and it should stay that.Everyone that calls it Serb Republic can write and it will redirect here anyways Dzoni 04:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal names are fine but we aren't calling Germany, "Deutschland" either.--Greasysteve13 05:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well,doesnt matter,Srpska will be part of Serbia in a few years,so lets just keep it like this and wait for referendum,then you will have nothing to worry about,because there will be no more Republika Srpska Dzoni 05:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just confused. Besides, the vast majority of English speakers cannot ever say, "Srpska"--Greasysteve13 05:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol hehe well,vast mojority cant also say Srbija,so they call it Serbia or Beograd,so they call it Belgrade,its ok though cause you have less letters then we do,so its harder for you,since you dont have шђчћљњзџж .Im glad we agreed though Dzoni 06:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the article suggests that the Srpska government translates under Republic of Srpska. So I guess the title is self explanatory. But then again there is always, "Côte d'Ivoire".--Greasysteve13 06:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You said it! And I agree,its self explanatory even to those who dont speak serbian: Republika(its clear that Republika means Republic) Srpska (well,you can goes that Srpska means Serbian) so real translation would be Serbian Republic,or Serb Republic.

The case when changing name is important is Beograd,but not as its done to Belgrade,but differently. Because "Beograd": "Beo" means 'white'; "Grad" means 'town' ,so Beograd should be called WhiteTown in english,not Belgrade...But its far from the topic though :) Dzoni 06:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Greasysteve13 06:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the name should stay as Republika Srpska because we are talking about the entity and not the republic. In fact translating the name into "Serb Republic" is both incorect and discriminatory and merely a POV by the few to imply that RS has caractheristics of a state or may deserve to be considered a state. Pure wishfull thinking. But RS will probably be abolished in few years anyway and this article may simply become part of the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina anyway.--Dado 02:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

hAHAHAHAHAH You probably live under the stone.........Srpska was made in Serbian blood and sweat and it can only get independent in few years,because it will NEVER EVER EVER BE MERGED WITH TURSKO-USKTASKIM ENTITY. Now Crna Gora is independent,if Kosovo get independence,THEN NEXT IN LINE IS REPUBLIKA SRPSKA......And they can set 90 precent margin on Referendum,people will vote for independence.SRPSA WAS MADE BY BLOOD OF TENS OF THOUSEND SERBS AND IT WILL LAST AS LONG AS THERE ARE SERBSDzoni 02:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll stay out of that argument, but: Although "Srpska" looks like "Qxzfep" to Americans, calling it "Serb" something invites Americans to confuse it with Serbia, or whatever the latest name is for the other Serb place in Belgrade. Art LaPella 02:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well,Republika Srpska means "Serb Republic" and it should stay that way....

How do you think word "America" looked to looked to Serbs 300 years ago? Probably like "Edfcodr" ,but we learn to use it. ANYWAYS,IN FEW YEARS TIME REPUBLIKA SRPSKA WILL GET ITS INDEPENDENCE AND THEN MERGE WITH ITS MOTHER-STATE SERBIA,AND THEN YOU WONT HAVE TO USE THIS WORD "SERPSKA",BECAUSE IT WILL BE PART OF SERBIA Dzoni 03:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you have presented your personal opinion rather forcefully. Caps-lock does not help your point other than to realize that you may be frustrated because of something. I would suggest you to take a Wikibreak before you get banned. I will not comment on your thoughts any further as this is not a Forum nor a place for political campaigns.--Dado 04:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Off course that I was frustrated after all the crimes against Serbs in Sarajevo,Bratunac,Srebrenica and so on and so on,after all that I dont want to hear that bullshit that Republika Srpska will be abolished,because it will never happen.Never will Serbs live with Turks again Dzoni 05:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Turks have left Bosnia more than 120 years ago and Serbs have not lived with them since.--Dado 16:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ja sam za tobom brate Dzoni!!! I think that Republika Srpska has the same rights as any republic to secede.- Lazar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.30.131 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

He means bosniaks r turks.- Lazar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.97.120 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So as in derogatory form to imply that they are an alien element in BiH as in Anti-Bosniak sentiment#Derogatory and insulting terms. Glad to have clarified that. No wonder Dzoni was banned indefinatelly from Misplaced Pages, but you seem to follow his footsteps.--Dado 17:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Izvini, I didn't mean to offend you I was just saying what he meant.- Lazar Can you forgive me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.97.120 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Republika Srpska, ceto, nece nikad biti spojena Srbiji jer je izgradjena na genocidu.. znas papak, ti si Bosanski Srbin a ne Srbin... znas papak... A ako hoces da znas, posto ste vi srbi zaludjeni, da je osmansko carstvo nasilno ista radilo( pitanje vjere) onda bi Beograd bio jedan lijepi muslimanski grad sa oko 300 djamija... Ajde sad nemoj reci da je tako pa dokazi da si uistinu papak... a sto se tice srbije ona ce da spadne samo na onu bijednu Rasku od cega je i nastala a mi bosanci(normalni pravoslavci,muslimani i katolici) cemo samo da vam se smijemo dok vam Vojvodina, Kosovo kaze pa-pa.. jer Crna Gora vec jeste...:)) znas papak.. do juce nisi ni znao sta je srbija jer si odgajan u finoj Socijalistickoj tolerantnoj drzavi na celu sa najvecim sinom nasih naroda i narodnosti Drugom Josipom Brozom TITOM.. ko li je tebi nafilovao to malo mozga sto imas da mi je znati... S druge strane ti si kao sto sam rekao Bosanski Srbin, zivi s tim ili idi u Srbiju a pusti normalne ljude da zive.. Je**m te usta Banja Luka je bila muslimanski grad a sad je sve cetnicko (4s) i folovi...A Sarajevo je za razliku od vas primitivaca multietnicko jer ja imam drugove koji su pravoslavci i koji takvim kao ti jebu mater posred one ... da ne nastavljam... Da skratim, poenta je da si ti papak kojem je nafilovan mozak.. Jesi li se ikad raspitao sta se desavalo u ratu, jos da kazes da su muslimani poceli rat.. pa mi smo bili za jedinstvenu Jugoslaviju, Titovu Jugoslaviju.. Samo dodji u Sarajevo pa dat cu ti sve samo pogledaj stvari iz drugog ugla kao sto sam i ja.. muslimani su se branili jer ste nas vi ubijali ( Srebrenica), to bi svako normalan uradio... Samo se nadam da za takve kao ti ima posebno mjesto kad umres... Bog ti pomogo, papak:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.132.192 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry the texst isn'z in english it's for my friend Dzoni.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.132.192 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice piece, i have to admit, as i was pleasently amused by the writings of an ananymous one whose third word of the post is an ethnic slur and who consistantly uses derogatory terms to 'persuade' his counterpart. To be honest, some of what you say is true. As a western educated Serb from Belgrade, i agree that genocide has been committed and i am the first to say that all of those who are involved should be brought to justice. However, you cannot say that Republika Srpska was build on genocide. It was build on will and desire of Serbian people living in Bosnia to not be part of the state union, as is presently defined, with their Muslim and Croat neighbors. It is true that the leaders of their entity used very rough and unacceptable methods to preserve their sovereignty and being, but if Serbian population wanted to be part of present day Bosnia-Herzegovina we would not be having this discussion thread right now. The simple and undisputable fact is that Serbian population of Bosnia does not want to be part of present day Bosnia-Herzegovina. In order for the modern day state to function properly, it must have, amoung several other components, loyal population and competent, trustworthy leadership. Bosnia-Herzegovina will not have loyal population when 35% of it does not want to be part of the state, and the leadership of that state cannot be though of as competent and trustworthy by Serbian population. Also, a state must have territory. When 49% of the country's territory desires to break away, that state has a serious territorial problem. If it were a village of disgruntled farmers who were asking for independence it would be one thing. However 35% of country's population with 49% of the territory is quite another.

Also, I noticed that you used the Montenegrin example. Perfect. The people of Montenegro went to the poles, voted, and although there were some irregularities, they voted to go their separate way. I, and 95% of Serbian Serbs cannot be more happy for them. If that is what they want, so be it. Same democratic principles should be applied to the Bosnian situation. The situation in Kosovo can also be used in Bosnian Serb favor. If 20% of country's residents with 15% of country's territory can fight for independence, why can't 35% of another's residents with 49% of territory do the same in very similar circumstances. There should not be the following double standard: all non-Serbs get what they want, Serbs get nothing. Please think about issues above before you post your next comment.

Ultimately, i do not know where everyone is getting the idea that Republika Srpska will join Serbia. I would think that the citizens of Serbia would have to be asked about that issue as well. We have enough of our own problems such as high unemployment, low per capita GDP, mediocre/poor healthcare, high prices, bad state education, Kosovo, Hague, foreign investment... Expanding the boundaries of Serbia is not exactly on our agenda. We are moving in a very positive direction, undouptedly, but there are many issues which have to be tackled. Not too many Serbian Serbs worry about Srpska right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.141.31.91 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mate, half of world has been built on some sort of genocide, so cut the cr.p! And the cheek of you for saying that Ottoman Empire was not oppresive! I suppose the Ottomans or Turks had never done a bad thing, they must've been feeding Serbs and others with Turkish cakes and cookies over the five centuries!

You say that Muslims wanted to stay in Yugoslavia? I've got to laugh...How do you prove that? By voting on referendum in 1992? By killing Yugoslav Army Soldiers in Sarajevo and Tuzla?

Bosnia is really a nonsense in the nonsense: the current borders of Bosnia were invented by Tito, purely to reduce Serbian dominance. Bosnian (muslim) leaders were smart enough to realise they could cheat the international community into believing they had the right to independence to whole of Bosnia. For how long are the Croats and Serbs going to be forced to live under Bosnian rule?

Naturally Croats and Serbs have become more and more defensive. The only solution is to redraw the borders and that would ensure permanent peace.

And this cr.p from that boll.cks from Sarajevo is pathetic. Papak, supcino, who the f.ck are you to tell who's Bosnian Serb or aSerb? Hahaha, the lad is crazy, he's probably frustrated that Bosnia lost to Serbia in Belgrade and a half of his so-called Bosnia cheered for Serbia and were as happy as ever! That's the only truth.

Regarding Serbian unification, that'll happen sooner or later! Serbs will unite and will live in a single state! The same will probably happen with Albanians, Kosovo will join Albania sooner or later! Because, mate, you can't ignore people!

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.150.150 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As to the post from 'westernly educated Serb from Belgrade' I agree with him to some extent; particularly the part of the right to self-determination for Serbs in Republic of Srpska. Yet I cannot understand that he draws a distinction between Serbs from Serbia and Serbs from Bosnia. Pal, if you were educated in the west as you claim, you should know, at least, that nation, but not borders, are the core of everything!!! I am disgusted that you've said that that the Serbian unification is not on agenda for Serbia! In whose name are you speaking? i am ashamed of the likes of you!

The Serbs lost the 1991-1995 war only because of such a typical snobbish Belgrade attitude, which has always remained the same (with exceptions of course). "We do not care about them" that's the typical Belgrade currency with reference to Serbs across the Drina river. Or even better, as Mira Markovic put it once, "they operate on lower intellectual level than us in Serbia". The true love and affection for Serbian cause actually comes from Republic of Srpska and former Krajina, never the other way round. If that had been the case, Serbian forces in 1991-1995 war would have had, at least, half a million soldiers (not 100 or 150 thousands) and operations such as 'lightning' or 'storm' would have never had stood a chance to happen. Im convinced that many Serbs will agree with me on this one.

Can you imagine the Turks attacking Cyprus and Greece lying idle?!

The French in Canada are always the French, teh Irish no matter where they are are always Irish, English are always English, but the Serbs if they come from bosnia are 'just those bosnians' to their Serbian brothers.

Disaster! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.96.135 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the title of this article in the ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA site is apparantly going to remain full of consonants with only one vowel on the end, could someone please include a pronunciation key for the god-awful word "Srpska". There may be more letters in whatever language that is, but why couldn't they have made some of them VOWELS!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.81.2 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Srpska is an adjective of word either "Serb" or "Serbia". Basicaly Republika Srpska means a Serb or Serbian republic (adjective + republic). It is the same with "Srbija" or "Hrvatska", however, these names are transcribed in English as Serbia and Croatia. The word "Srpska" has been transliterated in English, which is probably due to its short existence as well as the being part of a larger whole. If transcribed the closest you get is "Serbian republic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.167.198 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

For pronunciation of "srpska", try typing "srpskha" in control panel/speech, if you have XP.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.250.104.12 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, “Bosnian Serb Republic” should be a good alternative. I know the name Srpska (which is a word quite “alien” to English since it has five consonants and just one vogal at the end) is somehow known in English language media, but I think the specific term “Bosnian Serb” is widely known, too.--MaGioZal 20:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

City populations

The 2006 population figures for the cities seem too high to me. The source says they are 'calculations'. See the discussion at Talk:Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Cordless Larry 10:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a disputed tag to the city populations section, but it was deleted, because apparently it wasn't clear what was under dispute. I think that the population figures are highly dubious, so it deserves the tag. Anyway, in its absence, can anyone find any more reliable figures? Cordless Larry 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Names

Cyrilic script in its modern version is also an official script in Bosnian language as well. There is no need to monopolise it to Serbian language. Also term "Serb Republic" is an incorect translation of the name Republika Srpska and it is at best neologism. However, in this context it is an obvious attempt to portray Republika Srpska as somehow being more than an entity ie. a republic in terms of having having statehood comparable to other republics such as Republic of Serbia, Republic of France etc, which is in itself incorrect, POV and wishfull thinking. --Dado 02:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A I am not disputing that the name is correct as shown in Serbian Cyrilic but it is also correct in Bosnian which is one of the official languages of RS. We can either include both languages (which seams to me as an overkill) or remove both.

B Just because Economist lists it as "Serb Republic" it does not make it correct. While the term Serb Republic is often literarly translated it is incorect way to officially name this entity nor to portray the translation as official in English Language. The naming convention is explained in the "Name" section and there is no need to further push this agenda because it make the article biased.--Dado 17:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Many Serbs consider latin script as nationalistic and alien also but we do not exclude it as a variant in this article because of their opinion.--Dado 15:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Name

If the Constitutional Court found that the flag and emblem are unconstitutional, as they discriminate against the Bosniak and Croat communities, isn't the name of the entity unconstitutional as well? --Telex 14:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC) The preceding comment was removed by 89.146.132.192 (talk · contribs) 23:48, 13 June 2006. diff.

I've asked this before - if the constitutional court found the flag, arms and anthem discriminatory to the Croats and Bosniaks of Republika Srpska, isn't the very name "Republika Srpska" also discriminatory? --Telex 14:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a case at the constitutional court of BiH regarding the name of the entity but the court either rejected or postponed the decision. Personally I do think it is discriminatory as being a proper adjective and implying that the entity "belongs to Serbs". Most non-Serbs dispute the name and many completely reject to refer to it as Republika Srpska calling it "The Smaller Entity" (Aleksandar Hemon calling it Republika Šumska) --Dado 15:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you find out which of the two it was? (postponement or rejection) Would be interesting. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 09:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think from few places that I read, it said that the constitutional court rejected the case on grounds that it has no jurisdiction on the issue because the name is specifically called out in the Dayton agreement. However, the court has tendencies to make "partial decisions" which probably means that the issue is not dead yet. Certainly not for majority of population of BiH.

The court did in fact made a decision in the past that all cities which aquired an adjective "Srpska" or "Srpski" during the war had to remove the adjective or roll-back the original name. One could consider this a presendent but given that the court does not observe a common law but rather a roman or civil law (if my knowledge of law serves me right) the presedent should not matter in this decision. --Dado 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The court ruled that only names which had been renamed into "Srpski" were to be changed on the equality grounds. Bosanski Novi was changed into Novi Grad and it remains as that to this date. However, regarding the name of Republika Srpska: it is not in jurisdiction of BiH court to make any changes here since the name of Republika Srpska was part, perhaps a pre-condition for signig the Dayton Peace Accords. There are specified paths in any country in regards to constitutional changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.134.143.222 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Name

The English translation is "Serb Republic". It is used parallel to the term "Republika Srpska". I am aware that the official name is "Republika Srpska" - that's why I haven't moved the article. However, the translation is widely used and the only reasons not to include it stem from the apparent prejudices of certain editors.
Firstly, I don't care what some quasi linguist claims is "official" in the "Bosnian language". From the practical standpoint, speakers of "Bosnian" never use Cyrillic, and many of them display a irrational hatred of it. Secondly, and more importantly, nothing gives some joke of a linguist (who already presumably considers Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian to be different languages) to lay claim to the alphabet of what he himself presumably considers a foreign language (Serbian). Serbian Cyrillic was devised by Vuk Stefanović Karadžić for the sole purpose of writing Serbian. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that "Bosnian" uses Cyrillic (it doesn't), the alphabet being used is Serbian Cyrillic, with its unique characters (ћ, џ, ђ, љ, њ), and not Bosnian Cyrillic, an extinct script. I could - with just as much validity - say that the Hebrew alphabet is official in Serbian.
Here's hoping that my latest, carefully explained edit is not summarily reverted with a cursory explanation. --estavisti 15:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't deny that the term Serb Republic is commonly used mostly by those individuals who attempt to incorectly portray RS as a republic in terms of being another country. For uninformed users, which amount to about 80% here this term Republic would be interpreted in such way. Estavisti pushes the term with exactly that intention in order to mislead readers.

However if you are going to push names to mean what suits your agenda I can find many unofficial commonly used terms and definitions for this entity (including "the smaller entity") to balance the view.

Bosnian cyrilic is not extinct but its modern version is also official in Bosnian language. Vuk Karadzic when he standardized cyrilic script took many letters from Bosnian cyrilic and Bosnians have historical bond to this scipt. Only because Serbs have monopolized this script in last 20 years it has become mostly part of Serbian identity. Its limited recent use is mostly due to problematic conotations that this script held during the war.

Estavisti has, yet again, shown his expectable arrogance and intollerance towards other opinions and facts so I consider that most of your edits are done in ill fate and with heavy bias. --Dado 20:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Dado, you are certainly adept at alienating your friends. I don't have an "agenda", unless truth is an agenda. I'm one of the few Serb citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina who don't want to RS to become independent. My intolerance is to the falsehoods and POV you're pushing. I think you assume readers are idiots who will see the word "republic", disregard the rest of the article and assume RS is a country. Furthermore, I find your attempt to hijack the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet and heritige simply incredible. You clearly have no shame. --estavisti 20:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgot this: "I don't deny that the term Serb Republic is commonly used mostly by those individuals who attempt to incorectly portray RS as a republic in terms of being another country." I suppose this includes The Economist? --estavisti 20:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I already responded to you regarding the The Economist article and that article only proves that such false propaganda, that you resort to as well, is working and people are buying it. I don't think that most people are stupid (you said that). What I do find is that realistically people have short attention for such obsure topics as Republika Srpska and probably wont read past the first paragraph. You attempt to strategicaly place false interpretations of the official name in the top of the article and as part of one of the name's variants is completely unacceptable.--Dado 21:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Dado, I agree that some might use the name to imply that RS is a indipendent state (or more independent than it is), but most don't seem to have any agenda at all. Their intention is usually to try to interpret the name into something which makes sense for English speakers (or, rather, non-Serb speakers). I find that the name Bosnian Serb Republic is quite common when referring to RS in English. Some examples:

• BBC
• Washington Post
• IFOR
• ICTY
• PBS
• CNN

None of the above could reasonably be suspected of trying to push for independence of RS or be accused of having been fooled into using the English translation. So, I don't think it would be a big deal if RS was translated into Bosnian Serb Republic or Serb Republic, for the benefit of the general readers of the article. Osli73 23:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

For the n'th time I don't deny that some translate the name or simply assign it in english to mean Serb Republic but it is not an official translation. The translation is noted in the segment about the name where it can be explained in the context and not be missused as some are attempting here. Furthermore I simply can't understand the discriminatory position of Estavisti where he monopolizes cyrilic language and than adds term Serbian before latin variant as well. You guys are messing with the delicate balance of this article by introducing bias and each bias can be responded by equal measure to balance out the article. I'd recommend you to cool off.--Dado 17:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"For the n'th time I don't deny that some translate the name or simply assign it in english to mean Serb Republic". Well, no-ones claiming that it's official, just that it's very widely used, as has been shown. So what is your problem? --estavisti 19:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK lets deal with this finally. We have established the fact that term "Serb Republic" is not official. On top of that it is not the most accurate translation anyway. The name of RS is disupted in all of its versions because it is an adjective that portrays this teritory as "belonging to Serbs" which is wrong on so many levels. However given politics of the RS founders that was based on ethnic apartheid conducted through ethnic cleansing and genocide the name was not surprisingly selected. Today for more than 60% of population in BH name of RS is an insulting reminder of war attrocities that were conducted in the name or RS. Putting all that aside Dayton peace agreement did stipulate the name of RS in its untranslated version so we can live with that.

Placing the name variable in english in the first paragraph is an attempt to portray the name as official. Playing with the name in English and portraying it here as an official variable is just adding salt to the wound and it is playing with tempers of many victims of this political entity. In spite of that the name in its translated alternatives is noted in the "Name" section. So you can continue to push this obscure POV of placing the English variant in the top paragraph, creating a lightning rod as such and continue to aggrivate other users or we can resolve the issue as proposed and as it is proper per Dayton peace agreement.--Dado 14:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you disputing that the anglicised name is in fact Serb Republic? No one is saying that is official, and it's clearly stated in the name section that is not official, so what is the problem? --Lowg 14:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, as it is obvious and as I have pointed out, that some are pushing this name to the top paragraph as if it is one of the official variants. Most people will skip the tongue twisting nature of the official Republika Srpska name and use the propagated English variant which is only exacerbating the problem as it makes stronger phonetic association between Serb Republic and Republic of Serbia (just to name one obvious problem). To uninformed user the two are almost phonetic synonyms.

The translation is also questionable as Serb Republic literary means in B/S/H "Srpska republika" (not Republika Srpska). This may be the semantics but the former meaning has a stronger adjective to imply "the republic belonging to Serb people" which, again, is wrong on so many levels.

Finally, I understand that this name (Serb Republic) has recently been used often but it has crept its way to almost mainstream by propagandists who want to accentuate the two issues I have raised above to push their own agenda. It is politically incorect way to name the entity.

I have already pointed out how sensitive the issue is and why it is inappropriate to further aggravate it. The name is explained in the proper context in the "Name" section and it should stay there.--Dado 15:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Dado, your problem seems to be that you assume readers are idiots, and so everything must be done so to avoid giving them the wrong impression. If they can't be bothered to read past the second line, who cares what they think? We've presented it appropriately, and - as you yourself admit - the reason you're objecting is because you find the name insulting. You probably find the very existence of RS insulting, so should we delete the whole article just to suit you? --estavisti 15:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't skew my words. I have already talked about this and frankly this is getting to be annoying. I don't think people are idiots but they, as much as I do sometimes, genuinely don't care much about the details on obscure subjects such as for some is Republika Srpska and will take the simplest explanation and categorization. This cannot be attributed as idiotism. There are certainly more important things to learn about than RS, or BiH for that matter, where one can devote a full attention.

Just as with any subject the relevance of issues must be stratified. With that in mind it is disingenuous to start this article with the information that is problematic, politically incorrect and potentially wrong. For those who do want to know more details about the issue it is perfectly well covered in the "Name" section.

You cannot obscure the fact that name of RS is disputed by attributing it as being my own opinion. You must live under a rock in BiH if you don't see this as a contentious issue. At least 3 other users have expressed the same concern with the name issue and majority in BiH are highly offended by the name of RS. I can recognize the need for this article so your exaggerations about deleting the article are pointless but you have to recognize that a very large number of people would agree that the name is problematic and further messing with this article without the sensitivity to such opinions is reckless.--Dado 16:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you are taking this to have such a deep meaning, bottom line is this article is contained in the English language Misplaced Pages and if one just thinks logically it make sense to have the anglicised version. --Lowg 18:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Map and Coat of Arms

So that is how you do it. You revert the page for 3 times after we present you unbeatable arguement why the map is not appropriate and provide link for valid commentary about the flag and coat of arms and you force your POV anyway and dare me to break 3RR. That is very poor conduct and one that will certainly not get you results. --Dado 03:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

the map and coat of arms are valid, to invalidate them would mean to remove them as the RS leadership, parliament and people have not adopted a new one. User:anonymus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.15.13 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

To the constant revert warriors

Instead of worrying about the English translation of the entity's name (which one does not have to be a genius to work out for themselves), I direct your attention to {{Europe}}, where someone recently added Republika Srpska as an independent, yet unrecognized state (along with Abkhazia, Transnistria etc). --Tēlex 20:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Since this is addressed to the revert warriors, I'd like to show everyone this text from Misplaced Pages Commons :

Template:Keep There are many similar maps, showing e.g. the location of Munich in Europe and nobody claims Munich is independent from Germany. Shaqspeare 12:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

kept. There is no problem with the image. It shows an existing entity. I have added 'part of Bosnia and Herzegovina' to the description, so nobody will consider it as an independent country. --::Slomox:: >< 12:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

--KOCOBO 20:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW there is a similar map at England, without England being a sovereign state. --Tēlex 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Telex, you're absolutely right! Help me against these users that don't want to cooperate. --KOCOBO 21:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. can you divide the two maps from one another, like in the England article? --KOCOBO 21:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually England is a bad example - it's conventionally described as a country with defined borders in union with a number of other countries (Scotland and formerly Ireland). In other words, it's actually a country in its own right, despite being part of a larger entity. It's a fiendishly complicated constitutional setup - see British Isles (terminology) if you really want all the details. (If you want to retain some sanity you probably don't!) Anyway, the point is that it's a rather different type of entity than other European sub-national entities.

I've made a small change to the map which I hope will be a useful compromise. Previously, the RS was shown with borders similar to those of countries, implying that it was a national rather than subnational entity. I've removed the white border inside BiH - the only borders shown are national rather than subnational. I did try changing the "inner border" to another colour but that didn't work, unfortunately, so I settled for removing that altogether. The map now shows RS as part of BiH rather than implying that it's a separate entity with an international border. -- ChrisO 21:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I accept your version, it's fair. --KOCOBO 21:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a hard time finding the decision on commons legitimate. An issue was raised, valid arguments were presented, and then the whole issue was simply brushed away after one single vote. Other images suggested for deletion were debated over for extended periods of time, but here one single administrator apparently flew in and decided his judgment would reign supreme. With the comparison to Munich, the administrator was either uninformed at best or lying at worst: there is no map on commons showing Munich's location. More importantly, however, the comparison is completely flawed. Munich is a city of international importance, so showing where it's located in Europe is perfectly valid (although placing it at the very top of the article in a template of official information would still be wrong). The comparison to England is also flawed: England is a constituent country that is part of a political union. Republika Srpska, on the other hand, is a constituent entity that is part of a country. Comparing England, with its century-old tradition of independence and numerous international manifestations of UK-separate identity and sovereignty (for instance, the national football team) to the adolescent Republika Srpska and its ever-diminishing and constantly further-integrated and oft. disappearing entity institutions is like comparing apples and oranges. I also appreciate ChrisO's efforts to make the map less POV, but they simply don't change much here: why is it at all necessary to highlight Bosnia's internal political structuring on the European scale? If it's right to highlight Bosnia's divisions, why are all other countries kept intact on this map? Is it somehow more appropriate to highlight Bosnia's subdivision as opposed to Spain's? Russia’s? Perhaps if we proceeded to add every first level political subdivision of every other country in Europe on to that map it would be fair, but by then I hope the absurdity of the situation would be clear. As you can see, problems are abound. In my humble opinion - which I will try to express to you now - this map simply doesn't belong here. There is absolutely no precedent for a sub-national political entity of limited powers being shown in the context of Europe. A particular problem is the nature (i.e. nationalistic, irredentist) of said entity: it is not hard to phantom why certain politically charged Serb users would so adamantly push this map, even going as far as replacing previous maps on all foreign language Wikipedias (hint: I'm willing to bet they'd be singing a different tune if an Albanian user placed a comparable map for "KOCOBO"). Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a way to spread knowledge and information, but this map was implemented with a rather obvious agenda; a very insulting and controversial agenda at that. Misplaced Pages is also supposed to be all about consensus and pursuing quality together, but here a wholly unnecessary map has been forced over the complete objections of three major contributors to the article. And unnecessary is a key word because there really is no reason why the entity should be highlighted in the context of Europe. Republika Srpska belongs wholly within the context of Bosnia and Herzegovina (not merely politically and geographically, but historically as well) and, like all other national subdivisions, showing it as part of a map in any other greater context is excessive. Live Forever 21:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, listen Live, Kosovo and Republika Srpska are not the same, Kosovo is just a province, Republika Srpska is an entity, that has more autonomy than Kosovo. The map is valid and I have provided links to the approval of Commons. Republika Srpska is unlike any of the situations you have listed, and the map is appropriate. Once again, NO ONE is saying that it's independent or anything like that, but as an entity, it deserves to be shown in a map of Europe. ChrisO even took away the white border. --KOCOBO 03:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You were right about one thing: Kosovo and Republika Srpska are not the same thing. Everything else is laughable. Kosovo has a long history and it was defined as an autonomous provice through constitutional changes in 1974. Republika Srpska in its present borders has been defined by the front lines during the Bosnian War and confirmed as an entity in BiH through Dayton peace agreement which in itself is unconstitutional and was actually never ratified by the Parlaiment of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the highest legal body on that teritory at the time. As such RS is merely a transitional phase from the Bosnian War to a permanent amended constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is amazing what your whishfull thinking can concoct --Dado 05:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was talking about. The Dayton Agreement still stands, and Republika Srpska is an entity. What may happen in 10 or 15 years doesn't matter, Dado. Accept reality. --KOCOBO 05:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So the thing is settled. Per Dayton Peace Agreement RS is a political entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina so the only map that should present RS is the one that also shows BiH since RS is the integral part of it that cannot be viewed otherwise. Also per Dayton Peace Agreement official name of RS is Republika Srpska in latin and cyrilic script. Logically all other variations of the name since they were subsequently created should be noted in a separate Name section so that there is no confusion. I am glad that we have come to an agreement. --Dado 05:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, if the agreement is to let the article remain as it was before you vandalised it, then yes. As an entity with a status unlike any other territory in the world, the map is absolutely valid, and you will stop reverting now. Thank you. --KOCOBO 05:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but I have been editing this article for more than a year. You appeared today and accused me of vandalism. The "original" version of this article had no map nor the an english translation in the introduction and if such contraversial edits are needed than the editor needs to justify it. There was no acceptable justification given so far and attempts to compromise have been brushed aside. So I will let others decide who is vandalising what here. The article should be reverted to Live's version. --Dado 05:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats what worries me, you've been editing it for a year. The map poses a huge threat to you because it suggests that Republika Srpska is an entity in Europe within Bosnia and Herzegovina, but you don't want that, your opinion (and you have stated it) is that Bosnia and Herzegovina should have no RS and FBiH, but this is not WikiYourOpinionia, this is Misplaced Pages, so please refrain from POV pushing. --KOCOBO 05:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to make the point that as encyclopedists we're supposed to deal with the world not as we'd like it to be, or as it might be, but as it is. And the fact is that the RS and FBiH are territorial sub-units of BiH. Whatever they might become in the future, the fact is that right now they exist, as of our sources tell us. Given that, it's reasonable to show them on a locator map, just as (for instance) it'd be reasonable to show Catalonia or Bavaria. Please bear in mind that although we all know where the RS is located in Europe, many of our readers won't know this, so the map does serve a genuinely useful purpose. -- ChrisO 07:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Live asks: "why is it at all necessary to highlight Bosnia's internal political structuring on the European scale? If it's right to highlight Bosnia's divisions, why are all other countries kept intact on this map? Is it somehow more appropriate to highlight Bosnia's subdivision as opposed to Spain's?" I agree that it wouldn't be appropriate (or practical!) to highlight Bosnia's subdivisions in articles that aren't about Bosnia. However, if the article is about a subdivision of Bosnia, then it is appropriate, just as it would be appropriate to show a locator map of Catalonia's location in Europe in an article about Catalonia. -- ChrisO 08:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you've missed my point. By highlighting the internal divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina while ignoring the political structuring of other European states, this map implies that the RS is somehow a more sovereign or independent subnational territory (in fact, that is exactly what the Serb users here have tried to argue). It is not. To me the issue here is clear. On one hand we have a hotly contested map based on a POV agenda and setting a precedent never before seen on wikipedia. On the other side we have a map that follows the well established conventions used throughout wikipedia for years and that is acceptable to all. Live Forever 16:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right when you say there's no precedent. Even the Jewish Autonomous Oblast doesn't get a "place-in-the-world" map. --Tēlex 16:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you've missed my point. :-) We wouldn't show Catalonia marked on a Europe-wide map in an article about Bosnia. Equally, we wouldn't show the RS on a Europe-wide map in an article about Spain. The only place where it's useful or appropriate the location of the RS on a Europe-wide map is in the article about the RS. The existence of sub-national entities is only notable in articles about sub-national entities. It doesn't imply anything about their sovereignty - it merely shows where they are on a continental scale. -- ChrisO 16:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

My edits explained

Original comment:

• Serb Republic / Bosnian Serb Republic - this has been flogged to death and explained adequately already. To the guy who hasn't seen "Bosnian Serb Republic" - it's used. Google it or something.
• The map I removed shows the subdivisions of the Federation and highlights the RS, and doesn't show the regions of the RS. It just confuses the reader as to the status of the various territorial divisons. The map I added doesn't have this problem, and someone will translate it sometime.
• Someone messed up the infobox pretty badly, that was fixed.
• The road sign adds nothing whatsoever to the article, and so it's been deleted.
• The text about the war that I reverted was POV, as it implies that one side had authority, as it was rebelled against ("armed insurrection against the Bosniak dominated Bosnian government"). Also, what is the "Bosnian government" without the Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats? The truth is, there were three sides in the Bosnian War, not a "government" and two groups of "insurgents", as some would like to think.
  

Hope that explains why I changed what I did. --estavisti 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of each point:

• Serb Republic / Bosnian Serb Republic - this has been flogged to death and explained adequately already. To the guy who hasn't seen "Bosnian Serb Republic" - it's used. Google it or something.

You still don't understand the point. There is no official and widely-accepted translation of the name into English, so highlighting it as an english translation at the beginning of the inroduction is wrong no matter how "accurate" it may personally be to you. Live Forever 21:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What I stated above: Are you disputing that the anglicised name is in fact Serb Republic? It's clearly stated in the name section that is not official, so what is the problem?

Are you disputing that the anglicised name is in fact Serb Republic? No one is saying that is official, and it's clearly stated in the name section that is not official, so what is the problem? --Lowg 23:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in fact I am. There are numerous ways you could try and translate Republika Srpska and there is not one that is widely accepted and official. Why is "Serb Republic" the anglicised name? What about other translations, such as the ones used by the Republika Srpska government in english-language texts? And if you will finally agree to the obvious (that there are numerous ways one can translate Republika Srpska - a linguistic oddity that doesn't easily lend itself to english) then what is the point of clogging the introduction with this information when there is an entire section dedicated to the naming issue below. Live Forever 23:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't easily lend itself to english? It's two words. What other posiblity is there, Republic of Serbs? It seems Serb Republic / Bosnian Serb Republic is popular in english language publications, see links above for BBC/Washington Post/IFOR/ICTY/PBS/CNN examples --Lowg 00:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You simply reject to see the point that has been made here 10 times and that Live has repeated yet again. Your only reply is that you read it in several magazines which does not answer why do you want to add this particular translation to the top of the article--Dado 00:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see any logical point, only your political POV of why think it should not be there. Actually my reply for why it belongs there has been stated already in this talk page, let me re-iterate. This is the English Misplaced Pages, and logically it makes sense to an anglicised name. --Lowg 00:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that we're not dealing with Montenegro but a recent political creation that has no widely-accepted and official "anglicised name". There's a section on the name of Republika Srpska right below the introduction where you can try and implement whatever constructive ideas you might have regarding the english translation of the name. Live Forever 02:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• The map I removed shows the subdivisions of the Federation and highlights the RS, and doesn't show the regions of the RS. It just confuses the reader as to the status of the various territorial divisons. The map I added doesn't have this problem, and someone will translate it sometime.

If this is the problem, then why don't you merely fix what you find wrong with that more accepted map instead of pushing a heavily contested alternative? That said, what proof is there that there even are regions in the RS? Sure, it's included in the template, but the very existance of these "regions" has been questioned before on wikipedia and the points raised were never adequately addressed. There are no official sites, institutions, etc. of these supposed regions - nothing to indicate that they are anything more than, say, statistical regions. Live Forever 21:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is version he uploaded heavily contested? This I don't understand, it's just showing the geography/location of the region. Is that disputed? --Lowg 23:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already explained the issue above. Live Forever 23:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And what I've asked above is that I don't understand what is contested. The images just highlights the location of Republika Srpksa? Are you suggesting the map is incorrect? --Lowg 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It does a lot more than that and you know. Otherwise a map showing RS within Bosnia as it is only correct would be sufficient.--Dado 00:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know. Please just try to think logicially about this, and not with your political POV. This is an article regarding a location, does it not make sense to give the reader some context of where this region is in the world? --Lowg 00:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Does it make sense to show the location of Baščaršija in the context of the world? In the same way, it makes no sense to show the location of Republika Srpska in any context greater than Bosnia and Herzegovina itself. This is the same reason why articles about the hundreds of other subnational political entities worldwide contain only maps that show said entities locations within the countries they are a part of. Your arguments simply have no leg to stand on. Live Forever 02:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Someone messed up the infobox pretty badly, that was fixed.
• The road sign adds nothing whatsoever to the article, and so it's been deleted.
• The text about the war that I reverted was POV, as it implies that one side had authority, as it was rebelled against ("armed insurrection against the Bosniak dominated Bosnian government"). Also, what is the "Bosnian government" without the Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats? The truth is, there were three sides in the Bosnian War, not a "government" and two groups of "insurgents", as some would like to think.

What is the "Yugoslavian government" without Croats, Bosniaks, Slovenians, or Macedonians? You can say what you want about what you believe the nature of the Bosnian government to be (and, if you want, try and add information about this nature on wikipedia), but the fact of the matter is that the warring side in question was officially called "Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina" and internationally accepted at the very outset of the war. Live Forever 21:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's clear which version strives for a more neutral POV. --Lowg 23:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering the rather condescending and confrontational tone you've given me and other users here, let me be completely frank for just one moment and tell you that these little statements don't make it here. If you think his version "strives for a more neutral POV" then provide some argumentation and factual evidence to back up your claim rather than using a daftly vague statement to justify reverts. Live Forever 23:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought that Estavisti already made it clear, and I believe any neutral 3rd party would see it clearly as well. To be more specific, neutral POV "was one of the three warring sides" <-> biased POV "attempted to win recognition as an independent state by pursuing an armed insurrection against". --Lowg 00:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hope that explains why I changed what I did. --estavisti 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

At the time of insurection of RS the only constitution in force was BiH constitution ratified in 1991 and accepted by the UN as the only legal law of the coutry. The article 155 of that constitution states: "No one has the right to sign a capitulation nor to accept or recognize an occupation of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina or any part of its teritory. No one has a right to prevent citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina to fight against the enemy who attacked the republic. Such acts are unconstitutional and punishable as a betrayal of the republic. Betrayal of the republic is the worse crime against people and it is punishable as a serious criminal act." --Dado 00:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, still no attempt at objective thinking of neutral point of view with the statement at hand? --Lowg 00:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazing how selective your "logic" is. Live Forever 02:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the which is a more neutral POV, it's not about being logical, it's about being objective when comparing the two versions.--Lowg 02:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think the edit history may show I've broken 3RR. I don't know how this happened as the time here in the UK is 22:30, not 21:30. --estavisti 21:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of you guys may wish to add yourselves to Category:Supporters of Republika Srpska abolishment. --estavisti 23:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW Both Estavisti and Lowg have violated 3RR on this article and they continue to push their agenda --Dado 00:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The only agenda I'm trying to push is to enforce a neutral POV, and to improve the quality of articles, it seems to me that you have an obvious political agenda and that is influencing your logic and reasoning. --Lowg 00:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Serb Republic

The title of the page should be Serb Republic because that is a correct translation of the name. I wonder why it doesn't get translated correctly. Anybody? Serbska is a Serbian word. I know a lot of people use Republika Srpska, but it's not correct.Ferick 05:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources please? --KOCOBO 05:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was already explained in the article? "Because of the potential for confusion between "Serb Republic" (Република Српска / Republika Srpska) and the "Republic of Serbia" (Република Србија / Republika Srbija), the name "Republika Srpska" is often used in its untranslated form in non-Slavic countries." It's certainly the most widely-used form in the British media; the BBC uses it almost exclusively () and I've found 889 references to it in British newspaper articles dating back to 1992, compared to only 388 for "Bosnian Serb republic". -- ChrisO 16:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Map - how about this

The current Europe map showing RS isn't too great. RS is way too small on it, and its shape can barely be distinguished, so it would be better if someone made a map focusing on central and eastern Europe, Germany to Russia say. Also, to calm our frustrated interlocutors, the Federation should be dark gray, as Scotland, Wales, and NI are on the map for England. --estavisti 10:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As Chris has maybe suggested and as we have pointed out several times there is already an accurate map that we proposed that shows RS within BH borders as it rightfully only belongs to Image:PolozajRS.png. I think this is a fair compromise. Why is this not acceptable --Dado 16:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not include both - a locator map showing the position of the RS inside BH and a second map showing where it is on a continental scale? See also Catalonia. I've modified the infobox along these lines, and I've further modified the Europe-wide map to make it clear what it's pointing to. -- ChrisO 16:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Added: Bear in mind that many of our users won't know where BH is, let alone where the RS is! -- ChrisO 16:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is great idea ChrisO --Lowg 16:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What is this obsesive need to show RS in continental (European) context when the entity has no European but only Bosnian context. For that matter if you really want to locate it accuratelly why not add Image:LocationBosniaAndHerzegovina.png location of BiH in Europe with a larger map than showing location of RS in BiH. That way you prioritize subdivision levels --Dado 17:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What is this obesive need to not show RS location in the world? Why can't you compromise on this issue? We have a neutral 3rd party giving us a way to resolve this dispute and still you wish to continue? --Lowg 17:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it is completely wrong to show it in the world or European context apart from the Bosnian one. I have nothing agianst graphically explaining where RS is but it only works if we graphically explain that we are talking about RS being part of BiH. You cannot imply independence of RS and that is exactly what you are trying to do with this map. It is baseless propaganda. And btw, you have already violated 3RR on this article and now you are commiting vandalism by removing the disputed tag Misplaced Pages:Vandalism#Types of vandalism. You keep going like this and you will earn a ban.--Dado 17:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Dado, "our" side has been more than willing to compromise. A Catalonia-style map would be more acceptable for me, though I don't doubt that it wouldn't for you. estavisti 17:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Estavisti, It is one thing to compromise when you have two or more options where each is based on valid arguements but what we have here is pushing of a map that is completely wrong, deceptive and biased and "your" side has been pushing this bias with the understanding that the issue is so hot that if you have any sense you would not want to touch it with the ten-foot pole. Catalonia map most resembles what I have proposed ie it shows Spain and Catalonia as part of it. Map Image:LocationBosniaAndHerzegovina.png as as commondenominator provides a European context for both RS and BiH and a larger scale map shows RS in more detail in the context of BiH. I think that is fair and accurate.--Dado 17:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a fair compromise - I'm happy to go along with it. I should add that whoever said that RS is too small to show up particularly well on the European scale does have a point - Bosnia's a small country and the RS is even smaller. Image:LocationBosniaAndHerzegovina.png works better visually. Image:PolozajRS.png is a little confusing though, in that it could be interpreted as emphasizing the FBiH rather than RS. I'll see if I can come up with a clearer alternative. -- ChrisO 17:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This is more or less what I had in mind, but not quite. I don't understand why the England or Catalonia style is unacceptable. The way it is now, a user who knows little about the topic might think the Federation is RS, or even that RS takes up the whole of BiH, given that the whole of BiH is highlighted on the Europe map. estavisti 18:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have colored the RS section of BH map in green and there is a note bellow it so I think there cannot be any more confusion about that. Now if we could only get vandals and sockpuppets to stop reverting to what is acceptable and fair the issue of map should be closed. --Dado 20:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Municipalities maps

Since you talked about maps here, I guess you people might help us solve this issue: Image talk:BHMunicipalities.png. --Ante Perkovic 12:20, 8 July 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)

Anglicised

Bosnian Serb Republic is not the correct anglicised version of Republika Srpska. Republika Srpska in English means Serb Republic. Bosnian Serb Republic would be Republika Bosanska Srpska and this does not exist. --Svetislav Jovanović 21:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Not true. Serb Republic when translated back means "Srpska Republika" and since such name is incorect and unofficial in serves only in its desciptive mode which is to descibe the "republic" with an adjective "Srpska" meaning to belong to Serbs. Should I say again how wrong that is. I never heard of the phrase "Bosnia Serb Republic" In my opinion both should be removed and the former explained in the "Name" section given its use in some news articles. --Dado 21:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes yes, that would be the best solution. Remove both, no one is angry. Explain in separate section and everyone is happy. --Svetislav Jovanović 21:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You guys better do a search for "Bosnian Serb Republic", it's used. By the BBC, CNN, the Economist etc estavisti 22:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It is, but if you check the relative frequency of use you'll usually find that "Republika Srpska" is more often used. I did a search of British newspapers dating back to 1992 and found 889 references to "Republika Srpska", compared to 388 for "Bosnian Serb republic". -- ChrisO 16:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a compromise: change "Anglicised: Serb Republic / Bosnian Serb Republic)", to "sometimes wrongly anglicised: Serb Republic / Bosnian Serb Republic)". --Ante Perkovic 17:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No, this is the compromise. Previously, it was "English: Serb Republic". Chris, I don't see what the frequency of use has to do with anything. No German ever talks about Neusatz (Novi Sad). The House of Nemanjić was called the Nemanjid dynasty, and we still list that. This, on the other hand, is currently relatively frequently used (i.e. a couple of weeks ago in the Economist). The problem here is the intransigence of certain users (naming no names) in the fact of the indisuputable facts. --estavisti 17:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

Estavisti you know why I am disputing the article and you have just vandalised it by removing the disputed tag. But in case you suffer from a short time memory loss let me summarize it for you

1. Map showing RS in context of Europe (see and )

2. English translation in the introductory paragraph see (see and others)

3. Monopolization of cyrilic script as only Serbian while removing other variants (see )

It is clear to me that you and others have no intention of reaching a compromise in this article but only push particular agenda that has not changed since the problematic map was first uploaded. The same map has particular intention and it is summarized in the edit summary of the user who uploaded it and who is sitting out his 2 weeks ban from Misplaced Pages. This more recent outburst of new users on this article who have never edited this article before which strangely follow the same editing politics can either be attributed to sockpuppeteering or untransparent lobbying outside Misplaced Pages. So far we had 3 users who have violated 3RR 1 of which was banned for 8hrs. 2 users have vandalized the page by removing the POV tag and given a temporary majority presence have bullied and sabotaged all attempts to reach a valid compromise. --Dado 22:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Dado, you are seemingly unable to understand words like "compromise" and "consensus". They don't mean that everything you disagree with should be compromised on, while you yourself can simply stick to your hard-line position. I have attempted to compromise with you, although I can't speak for the other users editing the article, and you've taken the opportunity every time to move the mid-point between us closer to yourself. As for the Cyrillic, of course it's not only Serbian, but the specific Cyrillic script you're claiming is Serbian. Take this analogy - we use Arabic numerals, but we don't call them Western numerals because of that. You call me a nationalist, but you're the one insisting on Bosnian this and Bosnian that. --estavisti 00:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't bosnian Cyrillic called bosančica or smt. like that? There was some form of cyrillic script used in Croatia and Bosnia in the past. I believe taht the term "bosnian cyrillic" is already taken, and that you can't use it as a synonim for serbian cyrillic. --Ante Perkovic 11:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not consensus either when I have to accept a version that is factually wrong. While we have come closer to a compromise I am not the one who backed off from it. We agreed that Catalonia is a good example to follow and I have introduced a map of BiH to relate to map of Spain in the option that you suggested. I have also revised the detailed map of RS because of your concerns that RS may be confused with FBiH. You have not reverted back my edits but you did stand silently when others did and than you had a nerves to ask me what am I disputing. As for the cyrilic you keep avoiding the fact that modern cyrilic is also official in Bosnian language. As for the usage lets take the fact that in Bosnia for 50 years both cyrilic and latin script were in use by all ethnic groups. In fact it was (and maybe still is) a rule for example in schools to alternate between scripts. I personally like many others regardless of ethnicity have first learned cyrilic scrip before latin. So if we consider that all Bosniaks have used cyrilic for 50 years on a regular basis it is not surprising that it is an official language in Bosnian as well and deserves to be listed here or at least not to be monopolised by a single ethnic group.--Dado 15:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Dado, first off, I don't accept that Cyrillic is "official" is Bosnian. Bosnian Muslims reject Cyrillic and don't use it, but they want to claim it at the same time. They don't use it, and when you say it's "official", I assume you mean some third rate linguist has written in his pravopis bosanskog jezika "Bosnian uses two scripts: Latin and Cyrillic". That doesn't mean anything, if you can't see why then you're beyond help. Secondly, and more importantly, even if Cyrillic is used in "Bosnian", the Cyrillic used is the script devised by Vuk Karadžić for the Serbian language, with the unique letters ћ, ђ, џ, љ, њ. Even if this script is used to write Martian, it's still Serbian Cyrillic. Thirdly, you've been studiously ignoring my example of Arabic numerals, but we'll let that go. What that shows is that it doesn't matter who uses Serbian Cyrillic, in what language - it's still Serbian Cyrillic. Finally, Bosnian Cyrillic, as I have said before, and Ante has also mentioned, is a different script. It has been extinct for centuries. I hope you can let go of your hate and see things as they are for once. Pozdrav. --estavisti 16:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

And how are things? In Bosnia and Herzegovina itself nobody calls it "Serbian cyrillic" or "whatever latin", but simply "cyrillic" and "latin" because almost as long as these alphabets have been standardized they have been shared by the various people in the country. Considering the historical connections and shared linguistic heritage of the central south slavic diasystem it's absurd to assign national adjectives to these alphabets. Take a look at the latin; even though it's widely used by Serbs, the sole direct contribution a Serb made to it was adding the letter "Đ". If we applied what you're doing here universally we might as well add "Хрватска латиница: Beograd" to various articles on cyrillic wikipedias. Even Karadžić's accomplishments which you're essentially labeling as purely Serbian were strongly influenced by linguistic matters more or less completely independent of Serbs. If we were dealing with some other region and some other languages where an alphabet really did exclusively belong to a certain ethnic group than I wouldn't have any problem with this. As it is however, the cyrillic and latin alphabets are not exclusive to any one people nor do they exclusively belong to the cultural and historical heritage of any one people, and thus labeling them as if they are is simply wrong. As for the status of cyrillic in the bosnian language, it is wonderful to know that you have your (somewhat) well formulated opinion. Unfortunately, nobody cares. It is wikipedia's own policy that it's not its place to decide on such things, and much less yours to push an article version that does so. Live Forever 05:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Justification

Firstly, I don't really think I need to justify this revert, given that Emir has reverted a version which quite a few people agreed on. However, I feel this should be totally transparent, so here goes:

1. The notes: they go at the end of the infobox. Why Emir reverted this is unclear to me. See any article with an infobox, the notes go at the end. i.e. Vojvodina
2. The map of RS in Europe has been returned. I agree that the way it is now (showing RS alone) is wrong but it's better than nothing. Instead of deleting it, why don't you shade FBiH dark green, as is done in the England (Catalonia also has a similar style)?

   England is a sovereign state so the comparison is moot. Catalonia option is viable but given the size of BiH it is absurd and useless to further subdivid the small map. Even the one showing RS alone is so small that you cannot see all borders of BiH and hence is biased and misleading. To top it all off map's caption talks about location of RS in Europe which is beyond logic.--Dado 21:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

   Well, I live in England and I can tell you, England is not a sovereign state. What you're thinking of is the United Kingdom perhaps. RS actually has more autonomy from BiH than England has from the UK, so you just shot yourself in the foot with this point. If you look at the article on England, you'll see England is highlighted in the UK, which is highlighted in Europe. That's what it should be like for RS. Your other point is of a merely technical nature, and that can be solved by simply zooming in on CEE instead of showing Europe from the Starits of Gibraltar to the Caucasus.--estavisti 22:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

   Uploaded new map with same color/style of the location of England map in the England article. Hopefully everyone will be satisfied with this. --Lowg 00:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

3. Returned the Anglicised version. This shouldn't require any further explanation, as it has been flogged to death and the majority of editors have no problem with it. I have explained it clearly many times, and am presented with no arguments when it is removed.

   Your only arguement was that the name is used by BBC, The Economist and few other news agencies. You have completely disregarded my objections that 1. the translation is potentially wrong 2. that it in not an official name of the entity and desrves to be called out in the name section at best. Otherwise you are setting up a presedant for other name variations to be noted in the introduction--Dado 21:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

   You are clutching at straws. Perhaps you don't speak Serbian? If you look up "Republika" is a Serbian-English dictionary you'll see "Republic". If you look up "srpska" you'll see Serb(ian). So the translation is not wrong. I'm trying to assume good faith, but as you probably know "Bosnian" all I can assume is that you're trying to mislead people. Your second point is ridiculous. Misplaced Pages is not about what's "official", but what is. As has been shown (and you yourself admit), the term is widely used by English language mass media. So, a widely used anglicisation of the name is "Serb Republic". Just do a Google search. So, again I'm trying to assume good faith on your part, but it's difficult. --estavisti 22:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

4. The order I've reverted to is more logical, and as far as I can tell the messed up order is just a side effect of Emir's mass revert.
5. I don't see what wrong with "During the next three years, Republika Srpska was one of the three warring sides in the Bosnian War, the others being the Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) dominated Bosnian government and the Bosnian Croat statelet of Herzeg-Bosna. At the start of the war, the RS was in a much stronger military position compared to the other two sides." It seems very free from POV issues. Most of the accusations levelled at RS with respect to BiH in the other version could also apply to BiH/Yugoslavia ("attempted win recognition as an independent state", "pursuing an armed insurrection", "against the Bosniak (Serb) dominated Bosnian (Yugoslav) government.") That version also tries to underhandedly imply that one side was more legitimate than the others. That's called POV-pushing. So, the version I've returned seems to me to be much more free of POV issues.

   You find it POV because your point of view is skewed. The fact is that when the war began in Bosnia the only, legal, official and internationally recognized entity was Bosnia and Herzegvina. Military operations that RS led can only be described as insurrection against the constitution of BiH. One side WAS more legitimate than the other and that is FACT!--Dado 21:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

   You basically just admitted that you're pushing a POV. What more can I say? --estavisti 22:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's hoping we can reach a true consensus. --estavisti 16:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding legitimacy, I don't see Dado's comments as POV, not veen close. Bosnia-Herzegovina was internationaly recognised republic at the time of the war, very much unlike Republika Srpska. RS army would be more like UCK in Kosovo. Dado's comments are not POV, these are very basic facts. The problem is Serbs refusing to see themselves as rebels against legal government, but that is much wider problem. --Ante Perkovic 00:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding translation of "Republika Srpska" to english, I must say that merely translating word by word doesn't prove anything. Otherwise, I would be living in "Croatian republic". But I don't, I live in Republic of Croatia. "Serb Republic" is as bad translation as "Croatian republic". --Ante Perkovic 00:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Estavisti's efforts to portray the translation are admittedly amusing, but as Ante shows the situation is more complicated than a certain group of users and sock puppets would have us believe. As for the statement that Misplaced Pages is meant to show the word "as it is", maybe so but the convention regarding introductions to articles about countries and regions is that official terms are used. It is absurd to simply try and have an English translation there in the first place. The space is usually used to include variations of the name in the appropriate languages: if there was an appropriate English name then it would be the title of the article and listing it would be completely unnecessary. But there is no such English translation, and I don't think it’s Misplaced Pages’s place to decide what the best approximate translation is. As to the commonality of the term being pushed, it is completely irrelevant when we take into account that the local name used for the article itself is far more popular than that anyways. There is a section for the name further down the article where the issue of English-language translation may be addressed adequately. Live Forever 05:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Live Forever, your biased approach is clear now that you deleted photos from this article, and not the Federation article. I'm affraid your opinion is not neutral and you can't be taken seriously. Please don't attack me after this message, I am just trying to solve a dispute, while you're just pushing your POV. Thank you, --KOCOBO 06:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Listen, Kosova: this is getting ridiculous. All the photos on the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina are contemporary photos of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In contrast, most of the photos used in the gallery here predate the creation of the smaller Bosnian-Herzegovinian entity by decades. The Ferhadija mosque doesn't even exist anymore, destroyed by the very people who created the smaller Bosnian-Herzegovinian entity. What kind of hypocrisy is that? Galleres are meant to showcase the entity; to show users what they might expect to see if they were to visit. If we hypothetically had a picture of a 14th century native American village, would it make sense to use it in a gallery of the United States? Really, I'm genuinely curious as to what ingenious explanation you will be able to come up with. Live Forever 06:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, Kosova :) Please don't call me a hypocrit, when you're the one that focuses 90% of your time on Republika Srpska, whining about every single detail, while you spend no time on the Federation article. You take care of your Bosnian entity, and let the Serbs take care of the Serb entity. Thank you :) --KOCOBO 06:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Sorry. Live Forever 06:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

< - - - - - reset indent
Why the photos? Do they do you or anyone any harm? What about the word "Serbian"? Why delete that? Why, I ask you, why? Is it not in Serbian? Do you just not want to see anything resembling those words "Serb"? Are you afraid of something or someone? A race or ethnicity? --KOCOBO 07:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've answered all of your questions above. If you were to actually follow the discussion on this talk page instead of blindly revoking any edits that don't suit your agenda, you would have noticed this. Live Forever 07:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep adding totally-disputed? What exactly are do you think is not neutral POV and factualy accurate? --Lowg 17:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but with you I can no longer assume good faith. I have listed my concerns again, and again, and again on this talk page but you and the several other users have completely ignored them. User KOCOBO is the only one who has responded to the numerous issues I have brought up, and he merely lied about the content of other articles to label me a hypocrite and called me a troll and vandal without once touching upon the debate at hand. The rest of you refuse to participate in discussion and attempt to reach a consensus, label me a vandal (as if that is about make it so), blindly revert my constructive edits and wait for your numerical superiority to trigger bans. Sorry, but this is not the way wikipedia works. I've explained to you what I find not to be neutral and POV, what I don't find to be factually accurate; I've done it both on the talk page and in my edit summaries. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here so that we may try and reach a solution amongst ourselves, but if you further refuse to participate in the spirit of wikipedia than some other measures will have to be taken. Live Forever 17:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Map/translation issue is all that I know was disputed. Can you please be create new section on this talk page, because reading above it seems that these issues were already addressed. --Lowg 18:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

< - - - - - reset indent
I am content with the state of the map and language issues in the current article. Off the top of my head, what I am not content with is:

1. Labeling the cyrillic "Serbian cyrillic".

Which is exactly the specific type of cyrillic. This is a fact, do you not like seeing the word "Serbian" is that the problem? Perhaps it is you that does not have neutral POV, not the article. --Lowg 18:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I stand by the arguments brought up earlier. In this context, taking into account the shared linguistic culture, tradition, and heritage of the people in question, going out of the way to label a script as exclusively belonging to one ethnic group is superflous nationalism. Even in the region itself the alphabets are not given national adjectives. Live Forever 19:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Excessive information in the template box. Why do we need to list the timezone and currency when these are exactly the same as all other subdivisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

Because it's relevant in the context of RS, and it is a fact that is accurate. Again, not sure why you can label article as factually inacaruate because of this? They are true facts. --Lowg 18:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is also true that the entity in question is in Europe, but there's no point in labeling that in the template. These templates are meant to showcase the distinguishing features of a political unit; in this case, of a subdivision of Bosnia and Herzegovina (so the entity leaders, the anthem, the symbols, etc. are all perfectly acceptable). However, it absolutely does not matter that this entity is in that timezone or uses that currency, because these are things that apply to the country as a whole and are thus not distinguishing features of an entity that should be highlighted. Imagine clarifying that the dollar is used as official currency in the template of every single American state: absurd. Live Forever 19:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

3. Some of the photos. They are meant to illustrate the topic of the article, but they were taken one hundred years before the creation of the smaller Bosnian-Herzegovinian entity.

But they are factually accurate portraying locations in RS. For some reason it seems its your POV that you don't like seeing historic pictures in the article, not that article is not a neutral POV. --Lowg 18:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, they are not factually accurate. They may potray locations in what is currently known as "RS", but these locations were at the time part of Yugoslavia, the Austrio-Hungarian empire, etc. If you want to use these photos to illustrate said cities, that is also alright because these cities existed at the time the pictures were taken. The entity, however, did not; and it is simply misleading to viewers to use historical pictures that predate RS by decades to illustrate the RS. Live Forever 19:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

4. The constant removal of purely constructive edits by users such as you. For instance, the clarification on the legal status of non-Serbs in the entity you reverted as vandalism, saying that it was obvious that people of all nationalities had equal rights there. I don't know how well informed you are regarding Bosnian politics, but in fact other people do not have the same status as Serbs, Bosniaks, and Croats in the country. Live Forever 18:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This edit did not make sense to me in a 'name' section, to me when I am trying understand what a word means, the polictical information you give is not what I expect... It is worded in way that says only certain ethnicities have equal 'status', which is absurd and all ethnicities have equal status in RS, not just the ones you have mention. I think in order to keep this it should be re-worded to emphasis that the status you are refering to is regarding political/governmental status, which is it what is seems to be the message you are trying to give. Perhaps this information can be placed in another section where it makes more sense in the context of the section. --Lowg 18:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If it doesn't make sense in the "name" question, then why did prominent Bosnian politicians ask the constitutional court of Bosnia and Herzegovina to consider a case to change the name because it implied discrimination against non-Serb peoples? And I stand by my wording because I feel it does a perfectly good job expressing the issue. If you feel it doesn't, then feel free to try and re-word the sentence and we can try and reach a compromise. Live Forever 19:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If these are you reasons, then IMHO you are vandalizing the article and missusing the totally-disputed tag.--Lowg 18:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Serbian Cyrillic

I just want to make clear, I am not claiming Serbian Cyrillic for one ethnic group. Some users are persistantly ignoring my point about Arabic numerals. I suppose that name claims 1234567890 exclusively for Arabs? The name of something has nothing to with who uses it. --estavisti 23:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Still doesn't work. In context, this script is simply referred to as "cyrillic" without any national adjective. It's history is understood regardless. Live Forever 00:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please communicate comprehensibly. --estavisti 00:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious. Now I'll simply kick back and relax while the page is protected and then maintain the totally disputed tag for as long as you decide to be a smartass. Live Forever 00:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well why don't you try repeating what you just said, but so that it makes sense this time. I can't read your mind. Maybe you can't speak English that great, would it be better if we spoke in Serbo-Croat? And why are you basically admitting that you're being obstructive for the hell of it?--estavisti 00:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been placed in the 99th percentile of enough prominent language and writing tests in my academic career to know that my english is perfectly fine; perhaps your comprehension isn't the best? The fact that you seem to think I admitted to " for the hell of it" certainly seems to indicate this. Live Forever 00:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Just stop arsing around and tell us what your point is, O great one! --estavisti 01:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a hint: you just proved one of them. Live Forever 01:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Pathetic. Come back when you feel like discussing the issues at hand. Boasting about your amazing academic achievements (Well done for learning English!) and making catty remarks gets us nowhere, as far as this article is concerned at least. --estavisti 01:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? I didn't even touch upon any "academic achievements" until you made your wiseass remark about me not knowing the language. I'm more than ready to discuss the issue; I've been on this talk page the whole time, unlike yourself who's only here now that the page protection ensured that your numerical majority didn't allow you to bully those disagreeing with you anymore. And please don't even get me started on (to put it kindly) "catty remarks", which I've had to put up with from you and your like on this article ever since you first tried to force the controversial edits several days ago. You ignore any attempts at discussion or cooperation for as long as you can, and then when you're finally forced to come around you come armed with a stockpile of little condescending remarks and snide retorts. And then you have the nerve of telling the other side that they're stalling discussion? Pathetic indeed. Live Forever 06:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Serb Republic

I'm taking a wikibreak from tomorrow, so I'll just leave you with a few examples of the use of "Serb Republic / Bosnian Serb Republic" by major English-language mass media (unfortunately while taking a totally biased approach to it (or Serbs in general), but what can you do?).

1. TIME magazine
2. TIME magazine
3. The Guardian
4. The Guardian
5. The Observer
6. BBC
7. BBC
8. BBC
9. BBC
10. CBS News
11. ABC (Australia)
12. ABC News (USA)
13. The Washington Post
14. The NY Times
15. Deutsche Welle
16. New Statesman
17. Foreign Affairs
18. Foreign Policy
19. FOX News
20. Human Rights Watch
21. Human Rights Watch

These aren't at the original pages:

1. The Times
2. The Sunday Times
3. The Spectator

You'll probably try saying something like there's so few of them. Took me five minutes. Enjoy disputing this! :-) --estavisti 00:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And this proves what exactly? That "Serb Republic" is one plausible english translation of "Republika Srpska"? Nobody was disputing that. Live Forever 00:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Republika Srpska or Republic of Srpska is right name for this Bosnian entity. On BCS laguage it is not Srpska Republika. --Pockey 01:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

See Image:RSwelcome.JPG. --Pockey 01:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Some concrete suggestions on how to improve the article

Why didn't you do this before? Make some constructive suggestions, I mean.--estavisti 00:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Big words from a man who shied away from discussions until just now. Live Forever 01:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Get rid of the "Serbian" adjective in front of the cyrillic. It will only offend people and is completely unnecessary: even in Bosnia and Herzegovina itself nobody refers to it like that but simply as "Cyrillic". The history of the script can easily be gathered from other articles, but it's really ridiculous to insist on an unconventional name that will just trigger a "neutrality" tag when simply putting "cyrillic" would suffice and be acceptable to all.

Your POV. --estavisti 00:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And the world has officially turned upside down. Live Forever 01:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Rework the table. Get rid of completely unnecessary sections such as "currency" (what's so distinctive about that?) and add things that people would actually be interested in (such as GDP).

Where else are we going to talk about the Republika Srpska dinar if not in the Republika Srpska article? It's hardly in any detail. As for the GDP, that should be added, as well as export figures etc. Some of that information is available at the RS statistics Office website. You'll notice 2006 exports are so far up 60% or so on 2005 exports. --estavisti 00:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The currency section I was referring to is in the infobox at the top of the article and it has nothing to do with the image showing former currency at the bottom of the page. Apparently you're not even familiar with the article you wish to debate. Live Forever 01:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

3. Note in the introduction that there's no standard way to translate "Republika Srpska" into english and provide a quick "see below" link to the name section. There explain the situation further.

Well there is a pretty standard, widely used translation, as has been shown. See the rest of the talk page, especially my list of instances of the use of (Bosnian) Serb Republic. It should be in the intro, otherwise your anti-Serb POV is just going to end up reducing the clarity and accessibility of the article for the average reader. --estavisti 00:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"(Bosnian) Serb Republic" is not that much more common than terms such as "Republic of Srpska", so your claim that there is a "standard" translation goes out the window. As for the "widely used" bit, the by far most widely used term in English-language media is simply "Republika Srpska". To use a favorite phrase of yours; your arguments simply have no leg to stand on. If there was a "standard and widely used" translation (the little "pretty" you preceded this statement with wont cut it), then the name of this article wouldn't be "Republika Srpska". Seeing as it is, and the matter is complicated enough to warrant two large paragraphs and an entire section to it, including an "Anglicization" in the lead section is not an option. Live Forever 01:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

4. While we're at the intro, it really should be expanded. Right now it's very basic and short.

Agree. I put in that Banja Luka is the de facto capital, fairly basic I would have thought. --estavisti 00:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

5. Maybe there should be some section called "controversy" that should focus on contrasting views towards Republika Srpska within Bosnia and Herzegovina and the world at large, as well as it's role in the ongoing attempts at constitutional reforms.

Agree. That would be the perfect place for a description of your POV, as well as the Serb POV. I can't resist pointing out (as you were so full of yourself earlier), that it should be "its" (not "it's"), as the homonym in question is a possessive adjective here, and not an abbreviation of "it is". :-) --estavisti 00:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I only edit Misplaced Pages with the goal of providing truthful and balanced information. Using it as an outlet to express personal opinions is for nationalist simpletons such as you. Live Forever 01:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 6. The geography section can be expanded. The "municipalities" and "boundary" subsections should be moved to a new section called "Political subdivisions" or something.

Don't really care either way. It would be good if someone could make a map showing all the RS towns with a population of more than 10,000 (say), and put it in the geography section. --estavisti 00:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

7. "Bosniak forces", "Serb troops", etc. etc. What are we, in the middle ages? Get rid of these simplified descriptions and put in the actual names of the various armies: ARBiH, VRS, HVO, HV, etc.

Agree. Terms like "the Serbs", "the Croats", "the Muslims" have no place in any normal discourse, let alone in an encyclopaedia. --estavisti 00:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

8. The government section is incredibly drawn out. I think listing all the various Administrative Organizations is simply unnecessary.

Agree. This should be moved to a detailed article on the administration of the RS, or something similar. A short history of the governments of the RS would be good/interesting. --estavisti 00:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

9. The culture section doesn't have much information. I think we can get rid of the subsections and focus on condensing the information we already have. Live Forever 21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be better to expand the sections and add a few more, but I've no strong feelings either way on the matter. --estavisti 00:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Great suggestions but... Why would you remove the "Serbian" in front of the cyrillic? The majority of the citizens living in Republika Srpska declare themselves as Serbs. Last time I checked, Serbs speak Serbian. Cyrillic is just a type of script, not a language. Therefore, you should not remove the "Serbian cyrillic" portion. --Krytan 21:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What distiguishes "Serbian cyrillic" from "cyrillic"? Wikibofh_(talk) 21:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Some small differences in a couple of specific letters (Just like the latin used in England is different from the latin used in Turkey, even though the majority of the letters are the same). The problem is that in Bosnia and Herzegovina nobody would call it "Serbian cyrillic" but simply "Cyrillic". Most all Bosnians grew up with the script, were required to learn it in schools.. for Bosnian Muslims cyrillic was historically very significant.. basically going out of the way to label the script as "Serbian cyrillic" is unconventional in this context and would be considered offensive by many non-Serbs (asides from Serbs, it is used by Montenegrins, Bosniaks, and others). This cyrillic script was specifically designed by Vuk Stefanović Karadžić - a famous Serb linguist. However things aren't so simple.. Karadžić based the new alphabet in part on the extinct Bosnian Cyrillic.. he also helped set up what eventually became the "Serbo-Croatian language" so his alphabet was hardly historically exclusive to Serbs. Even today, although written overwhelmingly in latin, the bosnian language (i.e. language of the Bosnian Muslims) has this cyrillic as an official script. I hope you can see from this why many people, such as me, consider specifically labeling this script as "Serbian cyrillic" is inappropriate in situations such as this. On the other hand, simply labeling it "Cyrillic" would just be doing what is usually done in the region itself and wouldn't cause problems for anybody. Live Forever 22:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Live Forever, you really need to take a step back and think of what you are saying. Why is the word "Serbian" so offensive to you? You may not like it, but that is what the language is called, why do keep pushing your obvious bias to remove facts from this article, just because the word "Serb" or "Serbian" offends you?

The facts are: Cyrillic refers to an alphabet used for several Slavic languages (such as Russian and Ukrainian) each form has notable differences. Serbian Cyrillic shows the following unique features:

• E represents /ɛ/.
• Between D and E is the letter Djə (Ђ, ђ), which represents /dʲ/, and looks like Tjə, except that the loop of the H curls farther and dips downwards.
• Between I and K is the letter Jə (Ј, ј), represents /j/, which looks like the Latin letter J.
• Between L and M is the letter Ljə (Љ, љ), represents /lʲ/, which looks like L and the Soft Sign smashed together.
• Between N and O is the letter Njə (Њ, њ), represents /nʲ/, which looks like N and the Soft Sign smashed together.
• Between T and U is the letter Tjə (Ћ, ћ), which represents /tʲ/ and looks like a lowercase Latin letter h with a bar. On the uppercase letter, the bar appears at the top; on the lowercase letter, the bar crosses the top half of the vertical line.
• Between Ch and Sh is the letter Dzhə (Џ, џ), represents /dʒ/, which looks like Ts but with the downturn moved from the right side of the bottom bar to the middle of the bottom bar.
• Sh is the last letter.

Also in Serbian Cyrillic, some cursive letters are different from those used in other languages. These cursive letter shapes are often used in upright fonts as well, especially for road signs, inscriptions, posters and the like, less so in newspapers or books. --Lowg 22:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How am I pushing my "obvious bias" when you're the ones who added the adjective "Serbian" to the article and started the controversy in the first place? As for what the language is called, we're not dealing with a language but a script, and in Bosnia and Herzegovina this script is officially called "Cyrillic". Either way, having taken a look at featured articles on countries and territories, I don't understand why we clutter the lead section with this stuff anyways. Why not do the same thing as the article on India and merely list the name of the entity in the various scripts as the top of the template, while leaving the lead section clean and smooth? Live Forever 01:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"How am I pushing my "obvious bias" when you're the ones who added the adjective "Serbian" to the article and started the controversy in the first place?" by Live Forever

Or you want it removed? I think you clearly stated your option about seeing word:

"...basically going out of the way to label the script as "Serbian cyrillic" is unconventional in this context and would be considered offensive...I hope you can see from this why many people, such as me, consider specifically labeling this script as "Serbian cyrillic" is inappropriate in situations such as this..." by Live Forever

So you were saying that the adjective "Serbian" offend you that much?!? Is it not more precise to state "Serbian Cyrillic" instead of the vague "Cyrillic" which appears in numerous languages? Please keep in mind this is an Encyclopedia and we should attempt to present the facts and details, instead of making decsions based on personal feelings and bias. You managed to get article locked because as you clearly stated in your first concerete point above, this single word offended you so much you needed to keep adding a totally-dipusted article tag.

"but it's really ridiculous to insist on an unconventional name that will just trigger a "neutrality" tag" by Live Forever

Do you remember now Live Forever?--Lowg 02:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Lowg, before you sink deeper in your attempt in trying to deconstruct what is Live's personal opinion on the subject I think you are missing the point. No one is offended by the word "Serbian" but what most are offended is monopolistic behaviour to perscribe the scipt only to one ethnic group when other ethnic groups and in this instance Bosnian and Bosniak users of the script, not only have historically used the script but have also contributed to its development. Live has presented facts and a valuable insight on how this issue was historically and still is viewed in BiH. I have proposed in the past to add also Bosnian with the word "Serbian cyrilic" but that was unacceptable to you (plural). I think one can call that a hypocracy. --Dado 04:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't say no one, as obviously Live Forver is, and now it seems you as well? I think you are trying to look too hard for 'the point' when it's simple a fact that Serbian Cyrillic and Bosnian Cyrillic are not the same thing, and Cyrillic is general and vague. There's nothing deeper and 'monopolistic' here except trying to preserve details and facts in the Encylopedia instead of removing them due to individual personal feelings and bias. --Lowg 04:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In its modern form there is absolutely no difference between Serbian Cyrillic and Bosnian Cyrillic. Or let's put it this way. There is absolutely no difference between the cyrilic that Serbs write and cyrilic that Bosnians (all ethnic groups in BiH) write. The fact is that every single Bosnian is familiar and uses cyrilic script. It is a precondition to live in BiH as also many traffic signs are written in cyrilic. On top of all that every Bosnian has used the script in the past 50-60 years. Our schoolbooks were written in combination of latin and cyrilic script and in academic and professional life it was perscribed to alternate between scripts. In its history the cyrilic was never given a national designation so your "fact" is erronious. Your comments are hopeless and unproductive and beginning to be very aggressive.--Dado 18:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Dado perfectly summed up what I actually meant by the paragraph you butchered and dissected above to suit your personal view of me. It is not "Serbian Cyrillic" that you should've emphasized in tandem with the "would be considered offensive", but rather the part preceding it: "going out of the way to label". It is exactly this simplistic and nationalistic effort to monopolize the Cyrillic script which many people find offensive, and the fact that you're tripping over yourself with logical fallacies about our alleged Anti-Serb bias in every other sentence... well, it doesn't help things. Whatever the case, the issue before us deals with linguistics and contrasting interpretations of cultural development and history - not with the natural sciences and measurable data, so your constant appeal to "the facts" goes out the window. But let's look at some facts, shall we? Latin and Cyrillic are the official scripts of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Serbian Cyrillic? No. In fact, labeling the script as such is rarely heard of even in the Balkans: Google comes up with a staggering 800 hits or so. And something else worth noting: as far as I'm aware of, there are no articles outside our central Yugoslavian context that bother listing the topic's name in various scripts. The only reason that's done here is because previously the article listed the name of the entity in all three official languages. Of course, it was completely the same except for the alphabet, so rather than dealing with the absurd balkanization we merely listed the entity's name in the two official scripts instead. Now you bunch, apparently unable to bother yourself with trivialities such as official terminology and historical intricacies, have barged in to spread the "truth", "facts", and rectify the Anti-Serb bias of not marking a historically multiethnic script as exclusively belonging to one language/people. Misplaced Pages is about reaching consensus and presenting information in a balanced way, but it's more and more clear to me that with your antagonistic and accusatory attitude we will never reach any sort of agreement about the fundamental issues at hand. This is why I've offered a solution that would adequately represent all the necessary information in the same way as numerous featured articles, while essentially avoiding dispute about this (on the grand scale of things) fairly minor issue. Now, you completely avoided my suggestion when I first brought it up and just launched an attack at me about my horrendous "Serbophobia" instead. So I'll ask you again: what do you think of the "India model"? Only the article's name is listen in the lead section, while the name in the various official languages is listed on the top of the infobox (in this context it would mean simply listing "Republika Srpska" in latin and cyrillic). Live Forever 19:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. A perfectly fine compromise is offered, page protect is lifted, proposed solution is implemented... user KOCOBO comes out of nowhere after not participating at all on the discussion page and reverts the article with an antagonistic little edit summary. Yet another fine display of Misplaced Pages etiquette from our fellow editors. Live Forever 01:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In the same respect, you removed all translations first as soon as protection was lifted. I don't think that was a fine compromise, it seems to me that comprimise to you seems to mean what you want, and refuse any other option. --Lowg 04:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you please enlighten me as to what "other option" you're referring to? So far you've merely insisted on forcing the disputed status quo and responded to all our arguments by labeling us "Serbophobes". The compromise I've offered (which, by the way, you still haven't actually commented on) avoids the issue while still getting all the vital information across. It's the same thing that numerous featured articles do and should be acceptable to all. Live Forever 07:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The option that refuse to accept "Serbian Cyrillic" which is specific not vague. Just to add, I just did a google search and somehow I'm not getting 800 hits as you suggested. "Results 1 - 10 of about 589,000 for serbian cyrillic". --Lowg 15:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

We have explained why specificly assigning a language to a script in this situation is wrong. I don't know what kind of search did you conducted but the phrase "Serbian cyrilic" returns about 500 hits in english and after you scan throught the website they are mostly forums or reference website similar to wikipedia or ones that harvest wikipedia. So far you have not presented a valid arguement for this option nor did you present valid counterarguement against the position (except labeling us as Serbophobs)--Dado 16:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Now you are just being amusing. Why not try the proper spelling? Try searching for serbian cyrillic next time please for over half a million hits. It is not assigning a language to a script, it is the specific name of the script, not a vague reference. Why should we not include specific information in an encylopedia is beyond me, and I have given my explaination already on why I think you two need to label an article 'totally dispute' because of one reason only - 'serbian cyrillic vs cyrillic'. I never used the term 'serbophobe' so please don't put words in my mouth, thanks. --Lowg 18:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have explained why here . Live has explained it here

Why you still insist to push this bias is beyond me.--Dado 21:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Lowg, look over what I wrote again - carefully. You claimed that I "refuse any other option", suggesting that there are other options (presumably proposed by you) which present viable solutions for the current dispute. I don't consider maintaining exactly what is disputed to be a valid "other option". As for the internet search, I'd ask you to actually familiarize yourself with the way search engines work. A search for theexact phrase "serbian cyrillic" comes up with half as many hits as you claim, some 20% of which are simply related to either wikipedia or computer fonts. The 800 figure I mentioned earlier comes from searching for "Srpska cirilica" specifically. As for why your "specific" information is factually inaccurate and POV, I've already discussed it several times on this talk page. For one thing, "Serbian cyrillic" is not the specific name of the script; in Bosnia and Herzegovina this script is never referred to as anything but "cyrillic" without any specific linguistic/ethnic designation preceding it. And to expand some more on what was said, what makes a certain variation of the cyrillic script have such a label? When it comes to "Russian cyrillic" or "Bulgarian cyrillic", it's because these scripts are only used by one language and only fit that specific language. This is obviously not the case with the cyrillic we have here because it perfectly fits the language spoken by Croats, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins as well as Serbs. Even if the man who standardized this cyrillic script was an ethnic Serb, he also helped lay the foundation of what became the "Serbo-Croatian language" and many aspects of his work (such as the cyrillic script) belong to the linguistic/literary heritage of all the concerned peoples and their languages. Finally, concerning me only willing to do "what want"; well, no, because then the article would being by saying "Republika Srpska (Cyrillic: ...)", and instead I'm offering a solution that avoids the issue and effectively solves the dispute. Live Forever 22:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line is say what you want, IMHO there is nothing to dispute -- you two are causing a dispute because you don't like seeing the word Serbian in (top) section. You two love long diatribes trying to mask the fact you have no source to back up what you are saying. There is no dispute that there many variations of Cyrillic and Serbian Cyrillic is what Република Српска is. Unless you say show me otherwise that the specific Cyrillic is Serbian Cyrillic, I refuse to remove facts because the word bothers you. Also IMHO it's a blatent abuse by using the "Totally Disputed" tag because you disagree with a specific reference vs vaguage reference. Give me a break. --Lowg 08:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line is that your "humble opinion" won't cut it. I'm not causing any dispute; I'm merely voicing my concerns about disputable material that you added. Now, you can keep repeating yourself ad nauseam without actually replying to anything; hell, you can even continue with the redundant ad hominem attacks and assorted logical fallacies. But as long as you stubbornly refuse to work towards a version of this article acceptable to all, the tag is going to stay to reflect the dispute that you choose to ignore. Live Forever 15:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Now you're getting amusing as well, and I am getting tired of your attempts to misrepresent the issue. Serbian cyrillic is the specific cyrillic alphabet used, and that is a fact. I urge everyone to investigate on there own, good place to start: Cyrillic alphabet --Lowg 17:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Amusing yet tiring? Must be a funny feeling :). Something else that's funny is how you're using a wikipedia page to "solve" a dispute on another wikipedia page. As for "Serbian cyrillic the specific cyrillic alphabet used" and that being "fact"; no, no it's not. By now you're just repeating yourself. Live Forever 21:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Meaning I can't believe I'm wasting my time on this since it's so silly. You're making a mockery an encylopedia by trying to censor out words you do not like. Now are saying what is presented in Cyrillic article is not accurate either? I'm not wasting any more time with you. --Lowg 05:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Censoring" implies that I am trying to conceal valid information. I'm not. I'm trying to remove biased and inaccurate wording while arriving at an NPOV article. And how you can possibly tell me that I'm making a mockery of Misplaced Pages while you refuse to participate in discussions for consensus is beyond me. Live Forever 16:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop edit warring...

Or I'll protect the article AND go on a week long vacation. If I don't see Kocobo in talk in the next few hours, he'll be reverted, and that's what will happen. Wikibofh_(talk) 02:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"totally disputed"

Article is marked as "Totally Disputed". Why is entire article marked as NPOV and factually inaccurate? Will remove tag if no reason given why entire article is marked as not neutral point of view and inaccurate. --Lowg 08:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You're placing emphasis on the wrong things again. As far as I understand, the "totally" part merely means that not only the neutrality of the article is questioned but the factual accuracy is well. It does not mean that the entire article is disputed, because if that were the case we'd only have a few articles to use the tag on. The tag in this article highlights disputed content starting from the very top (labeling the script as "Serbian") to the very bottom (using pictures that have nothing to do with Republika Srpska to illustrate Republika Srpska). In closing, I'd like to remind you that withdrawing dispute tags without reaching consensus on an ongoing debate is officially considered vandalism on Misplaced Pages. Live Forever 22:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me please summarize this, correct if I'm wrong, these are you reason for setting totally disputed tag on article?

• "Cyrillic" not "Serbian Cyrillic"
• Problem with images in gallery.

--Lowg 05:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Placing "Cyrillic" instead of "Serbian Cyrillic" would just be another POV, which is why I'm offering an alternative that solves the issue. Live Forever 16:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So what is dispute now?? You want to remove it altogether?? Stop being vague and avoiding the question, otherwise I don't know why you want to keep the entire article totally disputed. --Lowg 02:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes: I suggest we remove it altogether because that way we completely get rid of any dispute. That's the same thing that featured articles about countries/territories do; they list the name of the entity in its official languages on top of the template and don't necessarily clutter the lead section with it. See for example India. Live Forever 06:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How was Republika Srpska created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairview360 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Gallery images

There are more than enough images of Republika Srpska to capably illustrate it without resorting to using misleading photographs. I'm specifically referring to the first three pictures in the gallery, as well as the ones of Doboj and Sutjeska. The gallery section is supposed to showcase the topic of the article; in this case a modern political entity with a relatively recent past. How is this modern entity showcased by pictures that predate it's existence by decades? Live Forever 20:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I said this many times on Misplaced Pages and will repeat again: Republika Srpska is not only political but also geographical entity, thus everything what is connected to the geographical area that is now known as Republika Srpska is also connected to Republika Srpska. That is an general principle that is used everywhere. PANONIAN (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Used where, exactly? Looking over the comparable featured articles I don't see any galleries at all. In fact, the main established Misplaced Pages articles I'm familiar with take the opposite approach in regards to history and modern political divisions. Notice, for instance, the way Misplaced Pages treats the issue of China, Republic of China, and People's Republic of China. Your argument doesn't make any sense; history is supposed to be the objective analysis of the past regardless of present political circumstances, but you're practically saying that it changes from day to day depending on how things are in the present. So if Republika Srpska was hypothetically abolished tomorrow, suddenly those pictures wouldn't apply? Either way I think you're missing the point. The gallery section is presumably meant to show people "Republika Srpska", and those pictures do not show Republika Srpska. They may show territory and places that are now part of Republika Srpska, but they are not Republika Srpska. All philosophy about historiography aside, the pictures are flat out misleading and inaccurate. Live Forever 21:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this IS NOT history, but GEOGRAPHY. Republika Srpska is geographical entity and these images are relevant for that geographical area. If it cease to exist, then images will not be relevant, but since it exist, the images are relevant. I will repeat, RS is both, political and geographical entity, and while politicaly it was created in 1992, its geographical area exist from the time of the creation of planet Earth, thus that make images relevant. PANONIAN (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but black and white photographs from half a century ago have more to do with history than geography. Furthermore, RS is not a geographical entity as you claim because its "geography" is completely based on its nature as a political entity. Even if there was some sort of "geographical" Republika Srpska it would be irrelevent because this article is about Republika Srpska as a political entity. It's simple logic: the gallery is meant to accurately illustrate the topic in question, right? How do 19th century photographs accruately illustrate the modern political entity? Live Forever 21:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"RS is not a geographical entity as you claim because its geography is completely based on its nature as a political entity". So? Geography of MANY states and regions is completely based on its nature as a political entity. What is your point? And this article have also history section (hence historeical images), and have also cities section (hence images of the cities), etc, etc. And this article IS NOT about Republika Srpska as a political entity, but about Republika Srpska as a political and GEOGRAPHICAL entity. Try to notice the difference. PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Second thing, your quote: "I've removed the whole thing based on other featured articles and the old debate." What articles? Here I will show you some that have Cyrillic name in them: http://en.wikipedia.org/Serbia , http://en.wikipedia.org/Vojvodina , http://en.wikipedia.org/Montenegro . Enough? PANONIAN (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about featured articles, recognized for their quality by the wider Misplaced Pages community. Articles such as India, Nepal, People's Republic of China and others. Instead of cluttering the lead section with information of minor interest to an english-language wikipedia, these articles list the local variations of the topic's name on the top of the infobox template. This approach is particularly helpful for political entities which have numerous official scripts and languages, such as Republika Srpska. Furthermore, it neatly avoids having to name the script in question and, consequently, the entire debate we had here earlier. That is why I proposed this solution in the first place. Live Forever 21:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

These countries you mentioned do not use Cyrillic script. See Russia, Ukraine or Kazakhstan for relevant examples. PANONIAN (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying there's something special about cyrillic which makes it incomparable to those other scripts? Live Forever 21:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that if Russia article use Cyrillic script there, there is no reason for us not to use it too. PANONIAN (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that a lot of the disputes on this discussion page are reall proxy arguments, the underlying argument being whether RS should exist. Whether one thinks RS was created "through genocidal aggression and therefore has no right to exist" or was created "through the legitimate aspirations of the Bosnian Serbs to live free of Islamic fundamentalists and is here to stay", it does not matter when it comes to the question of whether RS exists or not. The fact is it does, and just as with any article regarding a geographical area, pictures of points of interest belong in the article. An article about New York will have pictures of the Brooklyn Bridge, Montenegro pictures of Podgorica, California the Golden Gate Bridge, and so on. So, I do not understand why a picture of the bridge in Visegrad is described as misleading when Visegrad is, in fact, in RS. On the other hand, I have no idea why a picture of the Banja Luka Ferhadija mosque appears when the mosque is not there. It no longer exists having been destroyed during the war. Showing a picture of a mosque that is not there does indeed seem misleading.

Because that picture is a postcard from the 19th century. The Serb editors on this article are simlpy bending over backwards to counter my points simply because of who I am and what they percieve me to represent, to the point that they're reinforcing such absurdities as using a socialist era picture of the Ferhadija mosque to illustrate the then non-existent political entity that eventually destroyed it and then fought against efforts to reconstruct it. If my co-editors here would think rationally for a second, they would realize that using a blatantly outdated picture in the "gallery" section is clearly wrong and better the article by using a modern picture of the same location (For instance, the public domain image on the bosnian language version of the "Bridge on the Drina" article). Live Forever 00:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Tell me, did that land not exist in the 19th century? Was it just non-existant then? Whats wrong with having a postcard in the gallery? Yea, sure, the entity did not exist in that name then, but I believe Serbia was once a part of Yugoslavia.. so, would putting pictures from 1988. be something bad? No, my dear Wikipedian, no. Thank you, --serbiana - talk 01:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comparison is faulty because Serbia existed before Yugoslavia, and even during Yugoslavia it was a seperate political entity within the greater state. And if the picture from 1988 was misleading (for instance, showing the USCE building in 1988 when it has just recently been completely rebuilt), then yes; putting up such pictures would be bad. Live Forever 21:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Let say like this: Banja Luka is a city in RS and history of Banja Luka is part of the history of RS, hence the image. PANONIAN (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly. If Live Forever prove that Banja Luka and Višegrad did not existed in the 19th century, then we can remove images of course. :) PANONIAN (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is less whether Banja Luka and Višegrad existed and more whether pictures of Banja Luka and Višegrad from back then accurately represent modern day Banja Luka and Višegrad in Republika Srpska. They don't. Live Forever 21:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

But point is that that these images DO represent Banja Luka and Višegrad, which are cities in RS, no matter if they represent them as they are in 2006 or in any other year. PANONIAN (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

x (For whatever reason, when I add a comment it does not identify me as Fairview360. How does one make it so one's comment is followed by one's nametag showing the time of the edit, etc?). Live Forever, I think it would be entirely legitimate to remove the Ferhadija mosque picture from the site, but I do not understand why you believe the difference between an old picture and a new picture of the Visegrad bridge is the difference between right and wrong. What does it matter if the picture is old or new? And if you would prefer a new picture, why not add a new one?

O.K. got it, just click "sign your name". (I'm new to this site) --Fairview360 05:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's just a matter of principle. Why in the world would we use an outdated postcard when we can use a modern image from when the bridge was actually part of Republika Srpska? I don't want to make any sudden changes before reaching consensus though. Live Forever 21:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

One reason: BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE MODERN IMAGE OF IT!!! By all means please go there and take a modern picture of that bridge and then replace image with new one if you want. PANONIAN (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding image of mosque, the mosque was destroyed, but it will be rebuilt, and since it is part of the RS cultural heritage, no reason why we should not have this picture here. PANONIAN (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are plenty of reasons why we should not have that picture there. First and foremost, it doesn't accurately showcase Republika Srpska, which is what that gallery is supposed to do. If you want to, you can put that picture in the culture section (with the necessary explanation), but not the gallery. Live Forever 21:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The image do represent cultural heritage of RS, and the purpose why all these images are in gallery is because of rational use of article space. And to correct you: the image gallery is not supposed to show Republika Srpska, but to show images relevant for any section of this article, including culture section. PANONIAN (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

A picture of the Ferhadija mosque utterly destroyed would be a better representation of the cultural heritage of RS. --24.58.6.40 01:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the mosque will be rebuilt (I think that rebuilt already started), so it is very small period of time from its destruction to its renewal (In larger period of time mosque was not destroyed). I think the best picture here would be one of rebuilt mosque when rebuilt is finished. PANONIAN (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Panonian, why do you want to include a picture of a mosque in RS that does not currently exist? The Ferhadija mosque is not currently being rebuilt. It is not clear if it will be rebuilt. If it is rebuilt, it is not clear that it will be as it appears in the picture on the RS page. If you want a picture of a mosque in RS, why not a picture of the one in Brcko which is rebuilt? If you want to show that there are Muslim, Catholic, and Serbian Orthodox houses of worship currently in RS, then I would suggest three pictures of houses of worship that actually exist. Somewhere, I may have a picture of the Brcko mosque. But being new to this site, I do not know yet how one posts pictures. If I can find the Brcko mosque picture would you agree to have the picture of the former Ferhadija mosque replaced with the Brcko one? And what do you think of including pictures of an Orthodox church and a Catholic church in RS? --Fairview360 02:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Live Forever, here is a link to a current picture of the Visegrad bridge. http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Europe/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina/photo378859.htm It is from September 2005. --Fairview360 02:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fairview, the problem is that we cannot use all images on Misplaced Pages, but only images that are free for use. Copyrighted images cannot be used here, and images posted here in gallery are only images of RS free for use that exist on Misplaced Pages. If you have more images free for use (those that you made by yourself for example) and if you want to upload them on Misplaced Pages, by all means do it. However, please do not upload copyrighted images because they will be deleted from Misplaced Pages. PANONIAN (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

For example, that image of Višegrad from your link cannot be used on Misplaced Pages because web site where image is placed claim that: "Photographs from the TrekEarth Gallery section are also protected under United States and international copyright laws and may not be reproduced or transmitted in any way without prior, written permission from the respective photographer." PANONIAN (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Panonian, from my own collection in regards to points of interest within the RS entity, I have pictures from Visegrad, Doboj, and Zvornik that would be of adequate quality and interest. On second thought, I do not have a good picture of a mosque currently in RS (since Brcko is not in RS -- my mistake). But, I can get one of a mosque in Zvornik relatively soon. To be frank, my main motivation here is to get the Ferhadija mosque picture off the RS page because it strikes me as grossly misleading, but do not want to remove it without contributing something constructive in its stead. --Fairview360 17:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have some images of RS free for use please upload them to Misplaced Pages and post them either here either in articles about these cities. Regarding Brčko, Brčko District belong to both, RS and Federation, thus it is not wrong to post images of Brčko into articles about RS or about Federation. I do not insist that any of the images currently in the gallery should be there, but they should not be removed if they are not replaced with some other image. If anybody have some other images to replace the current ones, by all means... PANONIAN (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you see the public domain image of the Drina bridge that I off

No, I did not. Where is that image? You have some link? PANONIAN (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Live Forever, Panonian, I uploaded a current picture of the bridge in Visegrad, see the RS gallery. Panonian, I deleted the Ferhadija mosque, but have since seen a good way of showing something that no longer exists, the World Trade Center on the wikipedia New York City page: add the years of existence in parentheses. What do you think of my putting the Ferhadija mosque picture back with the following: "Ferhat-Pasha "Ferhadija" Mosque (1579 - 1993)" Live Forever, with the picture of the Visegrad bridge now current and if the Ferhadija mosque picture has dates showing that it was destroyed in 1993, is that acceptable to you? --Fairview360 21:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Fairview, I actually just uploaded another alternative. I don't mind which version of the 3 that we now have, but think the 1890 one looked the best. --Lowg 21:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What ever, I just put there a picture of another mosque that exist now and the image is from 2005. :) PANONIAN (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So would it be alright with you if I replaced the current image of the Visegrad bridge with a modern one? Live Forever 22:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You can replace any old image with new one if you have new images with proper copyright status. PANONIAN (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic map image

I believe that a change of the ethnic map is necessary, because it doesn't follow general guidelines of Demographics. Demographic majority is decided through the largest ethnic group in each county (opcina), and not in singular villages/towns as in the previous image. I will change to a more suitable image. Bosoni 00:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not see why we cannot have both maps here. I will leave your map here, but return old one too. PANONIAN (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually the ethnic map in question is based on settlements (Mesne Zajednice), which are the smallest territorial units that exist in Bosnia-Herzegovina. All municipalities (Opcine/Opstine) are officially composed of settlements (Mesne Zajednice). Settlements - not municipalities - are the actual basis of all population censuses. Maps made using settlements rather than municipalities are more realistic because they also show where different ethnic groups live within municipalities (something that municipality-based maps simply cannot do), and the technique used to make the map based on settlements is absolutely the same as the municipality-based map (the only difference being that territorial units are smaller, or rather the smallest possible). Why would one choose a municipality map - which is based on medium-size territorial units - rather than settlement-based one (based on smallest territorial units that exist)? There is no logical reason to do this, because municipality-based maps are less accurate than the settlement-based ones.

To further prove my point, let’s look at an example: the area of Ozren (south-east of Doboj) is an area of homogenous Serb settlement (this was true before the war started, and is still very much true today). Ozren Serbs show clearly on the settlement-based maps before and after the war (take a look), but on the municipalities-based maps there are no Serbs at all in 1991 there - it is all green, a Muslim (Bosniak) majority area of Ozren as it turns out! This is neither accurate nor realistic. Ozren area turned green (and Serbs disappeared) on the 1991 municipality-based map because the Ozren area and its inhabitants got lumped with some towns that have higher population density and Muslim (Bosniak) majority population, but what is true for a certain town in a given municipality does not have to be true for the area surrounding that town in that same municipality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.5.48 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the ethnic maps need to be labeled more clearly - the previous labeling leaves the impression that only Bosniaks lived where the green color is, Serbs where the red color is, Croats where the blue color is. I have changed this to "largest group" - technically plurality would be the best term but maybe doesn't make it clearer. Also I didn't understand what was meant by settlement (for Mjesna Zajednica) so I took it out - could we find a clearer term for someone who hasn't lived here? Perhaps precinct? That's used mostly for voting, but it does convey something smaller than a municipality. Randyps 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is Getting Crazy...

My recent trip to former Yugoslavia made me realize that the Republika Srpska and the Federation of BiH already are acting like they're their own countries. Schooling differs, like who a hero in the '92-'95 war was. Also, they use Cyrillic in the Repulika Srpska and Latin in the Federation. Also, when I was in Doboj, I saw a channel (I think it was called "K3"), where it's logo had "K3" in front of a map of, not the whole of Bosnia, but just the Republika Srpska. Also, when I was crossing the border from Croatia to Bosnia (I think this was in Slavonski Šamac/Bosanski Šamac), there was a big sign saying: WELCOME TO THE REPUBLIC OF SRPSKA (with that in Bosnian, too, of course). There was a big Republika Srpska flag in front, too. At least the license plates are the same... The Runescape Junkie 19:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to correct you, WELCOME TO THE REPUBLIC OF SRPSKA sign was not in Bosnian, but in Serbian Latin script. :) PANONIAN (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh, close enough. It's pretty much the same, Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian, with the exception of a few words. If only I was born before the war started...←T•h•e R.S.J.→ 15:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Language issue in name varian, yet again

What is an absolute need by some users to disrupt the sensitive balance of this article is beyond me. This issue has been discussed to death and some still see the need to initiate edit wars for no apparent other than biased reasons--Dado 20:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The three official languages of RS are Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian. That is a fact that some are just going to have to get used to. --Fairview360 00:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to remind you people that Serbian language have two scripts - Cyrillic and Latin, thus writting that only Cyrillic is Serbian script is not only wrong but also ridiculous. PANONIAN (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Roma and ethnic purity

One problem about all the lines of ethnic purity and deporting non-Serb population. As I understand it, Bosnia had a lot of Roma, and they generally allied themselves with the Serbs during the war. Does anyone know if the Bosnian Serb forces also deported Roma en masse. I expect that a few cases occured, but we can't say that the government was involved in deporting the non-Serb population if it left the majority of the Roma in place. Anyone know for sure? This link suggests friendly Serb-Roma relations, although that website tends to favour the Serbs a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epa101 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally know 3 Roma families that were also deported with whome I have lived in the refugee camp. The issue is that a great number of Bosnian Romas are Muslim so they were expelled based on their religion not necessarily the ethnic origin. --Dado 15:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. I didn't know that many Roma are Muslim. Is this also the case in Kosovo? I understand that many Albanians in Kosovo perceive the Roma to be on the side of the Serbs. Epa101 20:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember that the closing paragraphs of a chapter dedicated to Bosnia and Herzegovina's gypsy population in Noel Malcolm's "Bosnia: A Short History" talked about how many gypsy communities in eastern Bosnia were ethnically cleansed by Republika Srpska forces during this last war. Unfortunately, as I don't have the book with me, I'm not able to give you many details. Live Forever 21:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Not all Roma are muslim, and not all roma were on one or the other side. For example the Roma in Kosovo were mostly on the serb side and as such are procecuted by the Albanians in the post NATO occupation envirment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.15.13 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Explanations

1. It shows the RS within BiH in Europe, what's the problem?
2. What is a local constitution?
3. "Foreign affairs" - if you think about it, people who hate links between Serbs should like this title, as it implicitly says Serbia is foreign to the RS.
4. "Conflict with Bosniaks" - Misrepresents the nature of the conflict. --estavisti 13:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

1) The map clearly shows that Bosnia and Herzegovina is in Europe. It is obvious. It does not need to be repeated. What does need to be clarified given the nature of the map is that RS is part of BiH.

2) I agree

3) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is within the BiH State-level government. Ivanic is the foreign minister of BiH, not RS.

4) I agree. It is a conflict between those who want a unified state vs. those who want RS to be seperate from BiH or only nominally a part of it. Really, I think the vast majority of citizens of all ethnicities in BiH don't really care that much; they have contempt for their politicians and simply want jobs and security without too much thought about how that will be achieved. Fairview360 05:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

1. The map shows it in a European context. I don't see what's objectionable about the words "in Europe".
2. Changed the phrasing around the government. To attempt to portray it as a "national" government is ridiculous, as it represented only one of the three nations.
3. The BiH customs service - changed the phrasing so the people don't get BiH/FBiH confused any more than is unavoidable. "State-level" is simple, clear, and NPOV.
4. In the conflict between the entities section, the action and reaction have been reversed. I have corrected that. I have also edited it for style, deleting a few largely irrelevant statements. A few POV phrasings have been corrected. No "responded defiantly", "slammed back at" etc

--estavisti 07:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Symbols

News just in - the RS flag and coat of arms are constitutional. // estavisti 02:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That is totally incorrect. RS flag is constitutional, but the coat of arms and athem are not. Here is the source (it is official and in english, unlike yours). And Igor Radojičić, president of National assembly of RS, suggested that NSRS should form a board which is going to make proposal for symbols of RS. You can read it here (if you don't understand bosnian, I will translate you in english :D). --Kahriman 18:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On St. Stephen's day

That orthodox holiday is NOT A NATIONAL HOIDAY IN RS, because it has been doomed as UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN BIH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkalada (talk • contribs) 12:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Time to remove the "Disputed section" and "POV" tags?

Hi, What are the "Disputed section" and "POV" tags referring to? I can't find any recent comments about these disputes on the talk page and suggest that it be removed. Any comments? Regards Osli73 21:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No. In my opinion the article have very, very pro-Serb-nationalistic parts, with the veiled propaganda for uniting Srpska wih Serbia.--MaGioZal 22:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What specifically do you have a problem with? // Laughing Man 06:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

MaGioZal, to generally refer to "veiled propaganda" isn't enough. Please come up with specific complaints. Regards Osli73 22:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Specific complaints:

• War crimes committed by RS are exagerrated, while war crimes against Serbs are barely mentioned.
• Ethnic cleansing of non-Serbs from RS is exagerrated, while ethnic cleansing of Serbs is not mentioned.
• Presentation of ICTY.
• The last paragraph is written in positive tone (The UN-appointed High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina has greatly influenced the post-war development of Republika Srpska...) while view of these events in RS is negative.

Nikola 00:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Nikola, I suppose that the paragraphs you have the biggest issues with are (in the RS in the Bosnian War section):

The VRS and the political leadership of Republika Srpska have been accused in a series of cases at the Hague Tribunal to have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide (see: the Srebrenica massacre), the ethnic cleansing of the non-Serb population , of killing, torturing and raping at concentration/detention camps , the long military siege of Sarajevo, and the destruction of Bosnian-Herzegovinian cultural and historical heritage , . Many of them have been convicted of war crimes. While not including genocide nor crimes against humanity, Bosniaks have also been convicted of war crimes for their conduct during the war, including murder, rape, wanton destruction, and inhumane treatment of prisoners.

By 1994, the United Nations estimated that more than half a million non-Serbs had been driven out from the territory controlled by Republika Srpska and by the spring of 1996, a United Nations census indicated that Serbs constituted 96.8% of the population of the republic. However, the republic's actions produced worldwide condemnation, the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in 1993 and the eventual indictment of the Republika Srpska military and civilian leadership for war crimes.

As well as the following para.:

The UN-appointed High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina has greatly influenced the post-war development of Republika Srpska. Several of its wartime aspects of independence, such as a separate currency, have been abolished. A number of senior Republika Srpska officials have been removed from their posts by the High Representative after being accused of corruption and blocking the process of reform and reconstruction. It is likely that the powers of the republic will be further reduced in future, along with those of its Muslim/Croat counterpart, as a more centralized Bosnian-Herzegovinian state is further re-established by the international community. However, since the position of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina is scheduled to be abolished in 2007 with his authority transferred to local politicians, the reform of the country would depend of the will of the politicians from both entities. Also, due to the referendum in Montenegro and increasing dissatisfaction displayed by the Serbs of Republika Srpska, many of the citizens would like a referendum through which an independent Republika Srpska would be created, although the international community deems that entities do not have a right to hold a referendum.

Why don't you provide a compromise version of these texts which you think will be acceptable to everyone? That way we could move forward with the article.Osli73 00:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone justify the POV tag on the External relations page? I agree that it could be improved, but can't see that it is obviously POV. Again, be specific. Osli73 00:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit war, yet again

Bosoni, you, like everyone else, are expected to abide by WP:1RR. The paragraph you're trying to add (emphasis mine):

Today the creation of "Republika Srpska" and the Dayton agreement is considered by many as one of the most controversial pieces of diplomacy that resulted from the Bosnian War. According to most experts while on one hand Dayton agreement did successfully end the war, on the other it legitimized territorial gains achieved through ethnic cleansing and genocide on the territory of what would become "Republika Srpska", and it created enormous bureaucratic obstacles for Bosnian Herzegovinian tendencies for European integration. As a result many reforms are taking place in Bosnia and Herzegovina today as part of the revisions to the Dayton agreement such as unifying of army and police forces and the enforcing of state level institutions. However, the most controversial part and the main clause of the Dayton agreement that stipulated territorial and administrative division of the country is strictly insisted by the Serbs to be preserved. Most Bosniaks, and some Bosnian Croats, therefore consider the Republika Srpska to be an occupied part of Bosnia-Herzegovina purely created through war crimes and attrocities towards mankind.

Which part of WP:WEASEL, WP:LEAD and WP:RS do you want me to cite? The controversies should be clearly mentioned in the article and attributed to reliable sources. From WP:LEAD:

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies,

Yes, I agree that the current intro fails to "describe its notable controversies" and that should be fixed. You're supposed to work with fellow editors to find out the acceptable version, not trying to impose The Truth by revert-warring. Duja► 13:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest reporting Ancien Land of Bosoni for breaking the WP:3RR rule. I believe this person previously went under the name of Bosoni and behaved much in the same way. Does anyone else want to weigh in before I contact an administrator (which admin has been most active on this article)?Osli73 22:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

He didn't break it, there were only 3 reverts. I am the most active admin on this article, but being involved in the content dispute, I obviously wouldn't be the right person to impose the block. Duja►

My apologies. In that case I take it back.Osli73 20:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

de facto capital

Banja Luka very clearly is the capital of Republika Srpska. This does not have anything to do with it being an independent country (in the same way that Bismarck is the capital of North Dakota without it being an independent country). Therefore I am taking out "de facto". Feel free to comment here if you feel otherwise. Cheers Osli73 22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think de facto referred to the fact that the official capital is Istočno Sarajevo (which I'm not 100% sure of, but see here and here), rather than being a weasel word. Duja► 08:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Duja, you're right. I dug out this from the Republic of Srpska government's [http://www.vladars.net/en/srpska/ website]:

The capital of the Republic of Srpska is Sarajevo. The largest city, Banja Luka, with more than 200,000 inhabitants, represents the administrative, economic and cultural centre of the Republic of Srpska.

That might be a good wording to put in there.Osli73 20:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Natinal anthem

Here's a link to a site that plays the National anthem. Where could that be put into the article?Osli73 20:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"Disputed section" tag

Hi, I can't find any reference to what facts are actually "disputed". If there aren't any good reasons we should take the tag away. Regards Osli73 20:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Since there haven't been any replies to my suggestion above and several days have now passed I will go ahead and remove the disputed tag. If someone, after I have removed the tag, wants to put it back please motivate this on the talk page. Cheers Osli73 20:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As of today, Republika Srpska has no coat of arms and anthem

Take away the coat of arms of RS and anthem cause they are not the anthems/coat of arms anymore as of today. The constitutional court of Bosnia and Herzegovina declared them illegal and gave the government 6 months to replace them. Of course, the serbs pretend like nobody said a word and didnt do anything to replace the nationalistic simbols of the multicultural Bosnian entity Republika Srpska.

Because of that, the court decided that the coat of arms and anthem of Republika Srpska is no more and as of today, they are not official. So, take away the coat of arms and anthem. I will provide you with evidence.

http://www.ustavnisud.ba/bos/press/index.php?pid=1365&sta=3&pkat=125

"Ustavni sud je utvrdio da čl. 1. i 2. Zakona o grbu i zastavi Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine i čl. 2. i 3. Ustavnog zakona o zastavi, grbu i himni Republike Srpske prestaju da važe danom objavljivanja ove odluke u “Službenom glasniku Bosne i Hercegovine”.

Conclusion:

The nationalistic simbols of this multicultural entity is NO MORE!!! Now, finaly, after more than 10 years Republika Srpska is not serbian anymore, now it is multicultural. Alkalada 18:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Tis true, for both the flag of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska. This is the final and latest decision. If you follow my link, it seems to be serious, since the flags are actually being pulled down from official entity buildings. This will help build a stronger and more united BiH. Thanks, Vseferović 02:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea... this is a big victory for the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Finally we are free of this nationalistic shit that Karadzic put up in 1992 and now Republika Srpska has lost its last serbian thing in the entity. Alkalada 11:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Are we going to change it in the article? --Kahriman 15:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, take away the anthem and coat of arms of Republika Srpska cause they are no more! Alkalada 16:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

 Done --Kahriman 20:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

< - - - - - reset indent
Can I just recommend you be wise before taking down the coat of arms. There are a few overlooked factors: first of all, this monocultural "multicultural" Bosnia & Herzegovina (Alkalada, I'm talking to you) may have chosen to forbid its imagery; this will not live comfortably with the Serb population, therefore one way or another, they will continue to use it privately, or publicy where they choose to be more brave: the fact is that accross the world, many movements are forbidden in countries and yet their insignia (illegal) are kept hidden, yet on display. My point is, that the rotational government of BiH can abolish the symbols, but that will not remove them all together. A concensus is the best way to resolve this issue, so let's not arrogate. Evlekis 17:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Evlekis, you do have a point with the serbs. Of course they will sing Boze pravde and have serbian coat of arms, but that is completely irrelevant.

If something is not official,then it cant be used in official occasions. And because this simbols is no more, because of that Republika Srpska does NOT have a coat of arms or anthem. And I can have taliban, Al-qaeda flag but that does not make that flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina or flag of the Federation.

The point is, people can sing whatever they want, this is a free country, but if something is official, then you must respect that and because of that, the coat of arms and anthem of RS doesnt exist anymore.

And btw... do you think we real bosnians are happy with our national anthem? Nobody in Bosnia, serbs, croats, or bosniaks is seeing the current anthem as the anthem of Bosnia. The only true anthem of Bosnia is Jedna si Jedina but that doesnt make it THE NATIONAL ANTHEM OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.

Get it? Alkalada 18:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So Evlekis, what do you suggest? To leave coat of arms and athem as official symbols of Republika Srpska, even if they are not? That is spreading lies, you know... --Kahriman 20:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Kahriman, the Constitutional Court ruled that FBiH should also change the flag and coat of arms, but they didn't, and neither did Republika Srpska. Doesn't that tell you something about how much people in both entities care about what the constitutional court thinks? Untill Republika Srpska denounces the Coat of Arms and the anthem, they stay in the article, since this is not the official web-site of the Constitutional Court of BiH, but rather a 💕 to state facts. --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually.. as of today... the current coat of arms and anthem doesnt exist. Because this time the Constitutional court removed this simbols totally and this is kind of official. Btw... the Federation removed the flag and coat of arms yesterday and you will also do that soon.

And this is official... and because of that this simbols are to be removed from the article. Alkalada 21:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

When I hear this from officials from Republika Srpska, I will believe you. --GOD OF JUSTICE 22:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

< - - - - - reset indent
Just found this:
"Istovremeno, utvrđeno je da je član 1. Ustavnog zakona o zastavi, grbu i himni RS-a u skladu s Ustavom BiH. Ustavni sud je smatrao da se može prihvatiti argumentacija NSRS-a da grb i himna RS-a ne predstavlja samo srpski narod u RS-u, jer se radi o zastavi u kojoj su zastupljene panslavenske boje koje su karakteristične za povijest slavenskih naroda, među kojima su i konstitutivni narodi u BiH."
If an english translation is needed, I will provide one. Now stop removing the flag and coat of arms. --GOD OF JUSTICE 00:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That is kind of old news dude.

Ustavni sud said 2 days ago that the coat of arms and anthem of Republika Srpska is NO MORE! And please.. stop reverting this. Alkalada 09:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, user:Bože pravde, I really can't belivie how reasonable you are. You are saying that news portal pincom.info is more relevent that Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Also, you said: "Doesn't that tell you something about how much people in both entities care about what the constitutional court thinks? Untill Republika Srpska denounces the Coat of Arms and the anthem, they stay in the article". Well, first of all, constitutional court doesn't think, constitutional court makes decisions and those decisions are binding an must be proceeded. I am suggesting you to read article VI of Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (if you can read). You can find it here . Especially read this few times, wiseman, Decisions of the Constitutional Court shall be final and binding. And look, there is one decision witch says Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska shall cease to be in force. So, bye, bye --Kahriman 14:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

< - - - - - reset indent
IMPORTANT:You guys have missed an important point. Most people concerned about this, already know it, but it seems some do not. First and foremost, let me reiterate the process of the court's decision(s). First somewhere in early-mid 2006, the CC (from now on Constitutional Court) voted against the entity flags, CoAs, and anthem (the anthem - RS case only). Then in November the court decided that the flag of Republika Srpska is constitutional since it exemplifies Pan-Slavic colors (coulors-BA). However, with this decision and I think laziness (and overlooking) from both sides; we have forgotten to notice that even the current flag of Repulika Srpska is deemed illegal. Please read the official Press Release of the CC (C'mon no laziness this time...). In both the English version and the Bosnian version it states that the flag and coat of arms of the Federation of BiH is deemed unconstitutional and that the flag, coat of arms, and anthem of Republika Srpska are deemed unconstitutional as well. Now then, please read this since I am serious not trying to make up things

"Finally, the Constitutional Court adopted decision establishing that the Parliament of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and National Assembly of Republika Srpska failed to enforce the First Partial Decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. U 4/04 of 31 March 2006 establishing Articles 1 and 2 of the Law the Law on Coat of Arms and the Flag of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina nos. 21/96 and 26/96) and Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitutional Law on Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska (Official Gazette of Republika Srpska no. 19/92) as unconstitutional. Considering that that established inconformity was not corrected within a time limit of six months from the date of publishing this decision in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Constitutional Court established Articles 1 and 2 of the Law the Law on Coat of Arms and the Flag of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitutional Law on Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska shall cease to be in force as of the date this Ruling is published in Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Final text of the decision shall be verified at one of the following sessions of the Constitutional Court." LINK (last paragraph)

Secondly, why are people saying that this is a loss for Serbians only? I mean look at the Federation of BiH, with this the lilly is gone, and the Chess design (Sahovnica) is gone as well, showing that this is not just a loss for Serbians (EVEN though I think it is a victory for everyone). Hopefully this will let all three ethnicities live freely without the symbolic and nationalistic flags, CoAs, anthem... Thanks, a lot LINK Vseferović 17:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Federation of BiH has ACTUALLY taken this seriously. They have removed all coats of arms and flags from government buildings. Thanks, Vseferović 17:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The rulling includes the flag as well, as you can see the link and explanation of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Consitutional Court. The flags are uncostiituonal starting today, there is no need to keep them. They are illegal and have no right to be represented as consitutional. It is true that they have six months, but that does not impact nor change the consitutionality of the flags, coats of arms, and anthem. If they are uncosititonal then they have to be removed, there is no other option. You can place them as the former coat of arms and flag, but they cannot stay as official. Thank you, Vseferović 18:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Kseferovic, thanks for the fully explanation but I am kind of confused now.

Is the flag constitutional or not? They first said it was non constitutional and then it was contitutional and now they have removed the flag. Since I have read articles where they states only coat of arms and anthem of RS I am still not pretty sure that the RS flag is unconstitutional.

And btw... this IS good news for Bosnia but, I think it is deeply, deeply tragical that it SHOULD EXIST FLAGS, COAT OF ARMS AND ESPECIALLY ANTHEMS FOR THE ENTITES.

Bosnia is supposed to be unified not having 3 flags, 3 coat of arms, 3 anthems, 14 constitutions, 10 cantons, 2 capitals, "serbs refuse to see Sarajevo as capital of RS although it is the capital".

This isnt doing well for none of the constitutional people. Croats havent their entity, they constitute only 10 % of Bosnias population, serbs have lost everthing serbian in RS and we bosniaks have a homeland that is complited divied.

This is tragical for all parts. Alkalada 19:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Constitutional Court says that the flag in not constitutional. Please read this paragraph, i have placed the section in bold:

"Finally, the Constitutional Court adopted decision establishing that the Parliament of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and National Assembly of Republika Srpska failed to enforce the First Partial Decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. U 4/04 of 31 March 2006 establishing Articles 1 and 2 of the Law the Law on Coat of Arms and the Flag of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina nos. 21/96 and 26/96) and Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitutional Law on Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska (Official Gazette of Republika Srpska no. 19/92) as unconstitutional. Considering that that established inconformity was not corrected within a time limit of six months from the date of publishing this decision in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Constitutional Court established Articles 1 and 2 of the Law the Law on Coat of Arms and the Flag of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitutional Law on Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska shall cease to be in force as of the date this Ruling is published in Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Final text of the decision shall be verified at one of the following sessions of the Constitutional Court." LINK (last paragraph)

At first it was deemed unconstitutional, then the CC changed its mind and said it represented Pan Slavic Colors. HOWEVER, the final decision (after the final appeal) the Constitutional Court of Bosnia has decided that the flags, coats of arms, and anthem are unconstitutional. Thanks, Vseferović 19:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Kseferovic, the Court declared the symbols unconstitutional long ago, they just declared it again, but nothing has changed. Let's not make a bih deal out of this, considering that noone made a big deal out of it after the first decision (and who knows how many times they're going to declare it unconstitutional). By the way, Transnistria, Vojvodina, Athos,... all have flags and coats of arms, and they're not states. --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Boze pravde, there is a big difference between now and then.

Then they declared the simbols as unconstitutional.

They didnt decleare the simbols unconstitutional now, they REMOVED IT AND THEY DOESNT EXIST ANYMORE! Alkalada 20:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

< - - - - - reset indent
What are you saying, let's be like 90% of uneducated people living in BiH and say do not listen to the government. Articles concerning BiH, need to follow the Constitutional Court of BiH not your liking and not the liking of specific people. If the Constitutional Court declares something and the people are against it, the ruling still sticks. Please to not mix personal opinion and want with the decision of the highest power of BiH. This time the flags are deemed unconstitutional. There are no other appeal processes left. This is final. To tell you the truth this is a big deal even if Serbians are against it, finally BiH is heading towards some kind of (at least symbolic) unity. If you want, go oppose the CC by yourself, since it seems you are strongly against the decision. Thank god... Vseferović 20:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Let the RS have a flag, but one that is deemed Constitutional and is not a complete copy and influence of Serbia, this is where the issue rises. That is the reason the Constitutional Court has deemed the current flag as unconstitutional. Oh yeah, I'd be careful about the three revert policy. Seems to me that you have crossed it. I have kept mine to two... ;) Vseferović 20:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Vseferovic:

Haha, imagine... the new RS flag containing golden lilys. Haha... I think the serbs will start a war over such a small thing. It wouldnt surprise me. Alkalada 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean lilies but something that works for everyone, not one specific ethnicity...Thanks, Vseferović 21:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can put lilys, that nemanjica and sahovnica in the grb. But we can also put a mosque to represent us bosniaks, but I think the serbs will make suicide if a mosque is shown in the RS flag. Alkalada 22:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Alkalada, I'd like to ask you to stop making racist comments about Serbs. Kseferovic, you do make a good point, I thought that there was a chance for appeal, but I now see that I was wrong, and I apologize. However, I am against the ruling because I think that everyone deserves their symbols, even entities, provinces, regions,... I am Serbian, but I am not a Serb (there is a difference, a Serbian is someone who is from Serbia, a Serb is ethnically a Serb, but he can be in Bosnia, Croatia, wherever). "this is a big deal even if Serbians are against it" - I'm sure you meant Serbs, and not Serbians, right? Also, don't worry about the 3RR policy, I never revert more than 3 times, and I'm not the kind of guy that's gonna wait 24 hours and then start reverting again. I still retain the right to comment on the article, even though I have decided not to edit it anymore. Also, I am surprised how many people declare me as a Serb, just because I sometimes have an opinion that happens to be shared by some Serbs, even though it's not for the same reason. --GOD OF JUSTICE 23:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

< - - - - - reset indent
Well, no offense or antyhing. I understand. I see that your name is Avdo (a muslim name), however, I also see that you are Christian. So (if I may say so) it seems that you come from a "mixed" couple, as we south-slavs say. People read that you live in Serbia and are Christian which both go hand in hand with being a Serb. May I ask how you declare yourself on a census? Thanks, Vseferović 01:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the current content dispute if we should or should not include the flag and coat of arms in this article? // Laughing Man 02:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't you see that God of Justice and I have reached a common ground? The flags are deemed unconstitutional. The process of appeal has ended. Since they are unconstitutional there is no reason for them to stay. Of course I had to apologize... Thanks, Vseferović 04:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added the {{off topic warning}} to the top of the page as a reminder for what article talk pages are for. // Laughing Man 05:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? I have made many points regarding the flag issue. The main point that seems to be accepted is that there are no appeals left. I sincerely apologize. Thanks, Vseferović 05:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that Laughing Man is referring to the previous personal comments only, and added the {{off topic warning}} simply to inform new editors (and remain old ones) of the guidelines for using article talk pages; it was not a response to later comments.
In any case, some "personal" off-topic conversation is often important to improve relations among editors, of course :-). But it's better to move such conversations from article talk to user talk.
Thank you for the long explanation on the symbol's current status; I found it very helpful. - Best regards, Evv 12:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

< - - - - - reset indent
Anyways, looking online I have found the image of the video that I previously showed to User:Nightstallion. It shows how the Coat of Arms of the FBiH is being removed. I think that politicians have taken this action fairly seriously... link Thanks, Vseferović 05:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Ustavni sud je utvrdio da čl. 1. i 2. Zakona o grbu i zastavi Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine i čl. 2. i 3. Ustavnog zakona o zastavi, grbu i himni Republike Srpske prestaju da važe danom objavljivanja ove odluke u “Službenom glasniku Bosne i Hercegovine”. The FLAG IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Please read the decision which states that the Articles 2 and 3 (2 being the coat of arms and 3 being the anthem, note article 1 is not there, that is the Flag), are deemed unconstitutional. The confusion here is the law is called the Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem law, however, each article governs ONE of the three. Thus the flag remains... Also, the officials of RS are not required by Consitutional law to act on the decision until it is published in the Gazette (remember, the RS and Federation complained to the court in January, which then rejected the complain and has reaffirmed its previous decision, however, it has to publish this reaffirmation). Thus the symbols remain until end of March. The flag remains regardless. Boismortier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boismortier (talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection

This edit war is unhelpful. Folks, please discuss your reasons. --Nlu (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems that we have come to these conclusions:

• The flag, coat of arms, and anthem are unconstitutional
• There are no appeal processes left
• Even though, there is no new flag, it still does not change the fact that the current flag, coat of arms and anthem are unconstitutional (illegal)

I cannot believe that an anonymous user (who has all right to stay anonymous) is the one being listened to. Most likely a well-established user keeping his identity... Anyways, these are outright facts that cannot be played around with. Thanks, Vseferović 20:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As {{protected}} states, a protection is not an endorsement of the version protected. --Nlu (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Kseferovic, you state these things, but where are you getting it from? I've been looking (and requested your help previously) to locate any sources discussing the decision of the constitutional court. Even further reviewing the text, it seems only previous amendments were ruled unconstitutional, so I think would be helpful to see those contents at least. Also, do you anything of the "Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina" as it also mentioned in the press release as well.

Finally, how are you drawing the conclusion that it is now illegal to display them, and that there is no appeal processes left? Perhaps they will rewrite the previous amendments instead? Obviously some users still feel that the symbols should remain, and we should find out why by finding reliable sources instead of edit warring. // Laughing Man 14:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... how about a compromise. Although the CC has apparently ruled that the flag, coat of arms and anthem cannot be used as RS's offical symbols, they can still remain the de-facto flag, coat of arms and anthem of Republika Srpska. A bit like the de facto symbols used by places such as Kosovo, various Spanish regions and Tibet. The article should simply say that this is the de facto flag although it is not accepted by the Federal authorities, or something like that. Regards Osli73 17:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Or like the symbols used at England; they have no constitutional provision or other law backing them. Thulium 19:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a fair compromise. Make it absolutely clear that technically, these symbols are not legal any more. —Nightstallion (?) 10:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that this is fair compromise. // Laughing Man 16:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it too. Keep the symbols and add a clear note to the infobox explaining the situation. - Regards, Evv 21:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like that a rough consensus has been reached, and I'll unprotect shortly. Please be on your best behavior. Resumption of edit-warring may bring 3RR blocks and/or reprotection of the article. --Nlu (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that we could settle on a compromise. However, I think the term "illegal" is inappropriate. It's not as if brandishing them is a criminal offense, it's just that they are not officially approved and probably cannot be used for official state purposes. I think the Cross of St George is a pretty good example of a similar situation. Regards Osli73 17:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You are all wrong. The flag HAS NOT BEEN DEEMED unconstitutional. The coat of arms and the anthem appendices of the constitution have been, however, until the Constitutional Court releases its verdict in writing (expected in 2 months) they can be used as de facto symbols. Thus the flag IS constitutional while the other two are temporary. Put the symbols back up or I will do it tomorrow. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.253.27 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Our anonymous contributor seems to be right. The "BiH Constitutional Court annuls entity symbols " article in the Southeast European Times (January 29, 2007) mentions: As a result, FBiH does not have a flag or coat of arms, while RS does not have an anthem or coat of arms. - Best regards, Evv 12:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the page back to the one WITH symbols. PLEASE STOP VANDALIZING THE PAGE (this is to all users). Firstly, the FLAG of the RS has not been deemed unconstitutional rather it HAS BEEN DEEMED constitutional due to the "pan-Slavic" character of its colours. The coat of arms and the anthems HAVE been deemed unconstitutional however, this ruling has not become ENFORCEABLE until the Court publishes its ruling in the Official Gazette (expected March, 2007). The court has thus given the Parliament two months to adjust the coat of arms and take out the reference to Serbia and its "king" from the anthem. Boismortier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boismortier (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense

First of all who agreed to anything. Osli73, clearly disliked (even accused as a Serb) by 99.9% of the Bosniak community, is not someone who is forming a consensus. Secondly no one stepped in while the consensus was forming. Now you may say "Oh, now it is too late, why did you not step in". Well, a clear answer is "life" (people are busy). Anyways, there was a consensus until (if a may say so) a biased admin came about.

A little "history":

User:God of Justice and I resolve our disputes, while LaughingMan and I are deciding the issue over whether there are six months to change the flags. No biased admin

An anonymous user (since he knows the interface/usage of wiki most likely a known user) changes and reverts the articles.

So, the anonymous user changes back to the unconstitutional (current) version and Nlu comes in and blocks the page. Arguments stopped two days before and nothing else was added. A CONSENSUS was made, honestly, there was more of a consensus then there is now. However, I guess anonymous users have more write (And please refrain from telling me anonymous users have all right to be here, I know they do, but if they do not discuss then the problem arises) when they vandalize.

Please read his statement which has nothing to do with anything:

However, it should be noted that the Misplaced Pages community, for good or bad, is not bound by the ruling of the Constitutional Court. I think a consensus is still necessary; that's particularly because it's unclear whether the Republika Srpska authorities will abide by that ruling, which makes the issue murky. See, for example, Republic of China, which is not recognized by the world community, but is treated differently by the Misplaced Pages community.

and then we have Serbs saying:

User:hadzija (estavisti) stated that Misplaced Pages is not the place to form new ideas, languages, viewpoint:

"the language may be under construction (it can't be "re-born", as it has never existed before). However, as of January 2007 it has not been codified or internationally recognised. I'm sure its construction is not dependant on Misplaced Pages. So, when it has been constructed and is internationally recognised (i.e. has an ISO code at least), then we can talk about a coherent new language which can have its own Misplaced Pages."

Now...

Then if Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia based on facts there is no need for any deciding. We have to abide by rules even if some do not like it. Hey, User:Nlu, you stated that most of the world does not recognized the Republic of China. Well, think about it again (I am implying most countries do recgonize RChina)...

My main point is: "is Misplaced Pages (an encyclopedia) going to be based on facts or general liking"? Vseferović 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, this seems to be out of nationalistic reasons, since croats nor Bosniaks did not object to the flag/coat of arms of the Federation off Bosnia and Herzegovina being removed (to extreme-users, please keep it that way) we do not need to keep the sectionalsitis culture. Time to change and accpet the CC's decision. Honestly... Vseferović 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What, because I happened to protect the wrong version suddenly I must be biased? Again, I invited RFC to hopefully so that non-Bosniaks and non-Serbs can step in and give different perspectives. Apparently, you're afraid of that. And you really don't know the situation if you are implying that the Republic of China is in fact recognized by the international community. Apparently, you don't even know that Bosnia and Herzegovina's government, for example, doesn't recognize the Republic of China. (And, by your logic, since the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina does not recognize the Republic of China as a state, its existence is illegal and therefore its article should be deleted -- which, obviously, would be absurd.) Whether the flag and the other symbols should stay should be determined by consensus, not by partisanship and not by nationalistic feelings. The Misplaced Pages community reached a consensus that the Republic of China should be treated as a coequal state (under WP:MOS-ZH) despite its lack of recognition by the international community, despite much of the feeling of users who are in or from the People's Republic of China that ROC is an illegal state. Well, illegal or not, it exists; I'd say that a similar situation applies here. --Nlu (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

One more note: whether correct or not, everybody who was involved in the edit warring was misbehaving. If I were truly "biased," I could have simply blocked everyone involved for 3RR violations. And suddenly, once the protection was in place, the people who were not so busy that they edit warred suddenly became so busy that they can't bother to make reasonable arguments here? Sorry, I don't buy it. --Nlu (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I even warned one of the Serbian users User:GodofJustice of the 3RR policy and no you could not have blocked us. I stopped at two and continued reverting (as I would say for a just cause) the next day. It was anonymous users that did the reverting, etc. It seems you are not comprehending the extreme-ultra nationalistic Serb who said "rv, Vandalism Bosniak" to User:kahriman and then "rv, Vandalism another Bosniak" to me. I am proud but this is outright nationalistic verbal assault. Furthermore, you do not seem to understand that Republika Srpska is now where near comparable to the Republic of China, now where. Republika Srpska is Bosnia and Herzegovina and has no autonomy. Republic of China is its own nation. I think that most of the world recognizes RChina if RChina is Taiwan. (I may be mistaken), but I think many confuse Republika Srpska with Republic of Serbia, two totally different "things". Vseferović 00:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

another source?

Can someone please review this site: Ustavni sud Republike Srpske Template:Sr icon to see if any further information can be found. The Republic of Srpska Government Template:En icon site still reflects the Flag and Coat of Arms. // Laughing Man 07:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the page back to the one WITH symbols. PLEASE STOP VANDALIZING THE PAGE (this is to all users). Firstly, the FLAG of the RS has not been deemed unconstitutional rather it HAS BEEN DEEMED constitutional due to the "pan-Slavic" character of its colours. The coat of arms and the anthems HAVE been deemed unconstitutional however, this ruling has not become ENFORCEABLE until the Court publishes its ruling in the Official Gazette (expected March, 2007). The court has thus given the Parliament two months to adjust the coat of arms and take out the reference to Serbia and its "king" from the anthem. Boismortier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boismortier (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A very simple compromise solution

I can't see why this should be such an issue. Just say that the coat of arms & anthem are the "unofficial coat and arms & anthem of Republika Srpska as they have been deemed unconsititional by the Consitutional Court" or something to that effect. How difficult can it be?

Is it really the case that the CC found the flag unconsititional? Reading this pressrelease from the CCBH it would seem that it can accept the flag. Am I missing some more recent info? I was unable to read the link to the site in Serbo-Croatian. Anyways, the CCBH press release says:

The Constitutional Court has also held that Article 1 of the Constitutional Law on the Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska is in conformity with Article II (4) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 (a) and (c) of the International Convention for Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination under Annex I to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Constitutional Court has found it can accept the National Assembly’s argument that the flag of the Republika Srpska, as defined in Article 1 of the Constitutional Law on the Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska, does not represent only the Serb people in the Republika Srpska as the colors displayed on that flag are Pan-Slavic colors which are specific for the history of the Slavic peoples, including the constituent peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Constitutional Court reminds that the flag of the Republika Srpska and flag of Serbia are not identical as the flag of Serbia, which, unlike the flag of Republika Srpska, has a coat of arms. Moreover, the fact, which was stated in the applicant’s request, that the flag was used during the war and that war was waged under that symbol, does not mean per se that the colors on the flag and their arrangement are unconstitutional.
Osli73 19:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli seriously what are you saying. Check the date on what you are saying. That was passed on November 18, 2006! Much has changed. I am sick of Serbs (hopefully not Serbians since they are a seperate country) saying that the flag has not been deemed unconsitutuional! IT CLEARLY MENTIONS the flag! Please read the excerpt. READ:

"Finally, the Constitutional Court adopted decision establishing that the Parliament of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and National Assembly of Republika Srpska failed to enforce the First Partial Decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. U 4/04 of 31 March 2006 establishing Articles 1 and 2 of the Law the Law on Coat of Arms and the Flag of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina nos. 21/96 and 26/96) and Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitutional Law on Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska (Official Gazette of Republika Srpska no. 19/92) as unconstitutional. Considering that that established inconformity was not corrected within a time limit of six months from the date of publishing this decision in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Constitutional Court established Articles 1 and 2 of the Law the Law on Coat of Arms and the Flag of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitutional Law on Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska shall cease to be in force as of the date this Ruling is published in Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Final text of the decision shall be verified at one of the following sessions of the Constitutional Court."

Do not try to manipulate people. Nice try, Thanks, Vseferović 00:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Kseforovic, I'm not trying to "manipulate" anyone. I mentioned in my entry above that "Am I missing some more recent info? I was unable to read the link to the site in Serbo-Croatian." It was just that when I searched for "flag" on the CCBHs website, this was the most recent entry that I could find.

Regards Osli73 11:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Vseferovic - you are wrong. Read the Constitution of RS: there is a Law called the Law on Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the RS... It is composed of THREE ARTICLES. I repeat very slowly and that in LARGE LETTERS: THREE ARTICLES. Article 1 deals with the flag and specifies it as a rectangular construct with three fields, red, blue and white, sans arms... Then there is Article 2 which deals with the Nemanjid crest or coat of arms, and finally Article 3 which deals with the anthem. As your own quote shows, Articles 2 and 3 were deemed unconstitutional NOT ARTICLE ONE. The flag was deemed CONSTITUTIONAL as per the following statment: "The Constitutional Court has found it can accept the National Assembly’s argument that the flag of the Republika Srpska, as defined in Article 1 of the Constitutional Law on the Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska, does not represent only the Serb people in the Republika Srpska as the colors displayed on that flag are Pan-Slavic colors which are specific for the history of the Slavic peoples, including the constituent peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina." In addition, in January of 2007 both the Federal and the Republican governments appealed the decision (the Federation had remained without the coat of arms AND the flag - they had no anthem, while the RS kept the flag but was left without the coat of arms and the anthem). The Court then uphelds its previous ruling of Novemember 2006, and has had to REPUBLISH the ruling in the Gazette therein making it LAW. This will not happen until March, as the Court has given both the RS and the Federation 2 months to change these. The RS is currently entertaining the coat of arms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia with one change - two headed eagle with a shield containing the Serbian betoid cross (ocila), the Croatian checkerboard and bellow three fleurs-de-lis... This will be the new coat of arms. The anthem will erase any mention of King and Serbia and remain as is... The Federation will need to add the betoid cross to its flag and crest... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.253.27 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

< - - - - - reset indent
Don’t you understand that the Constitutional Court of BiH has more right and power over the constitution of RS. This decision comes from the main governing body of Bosnia and Herzegovina "The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina". No one says that the RS has no right to a flag or coat of arms. As far as I care, let them have it, but one that is deemed Constitutional. Bosnia and Herzegovina had to change their 1992-1998 flag since of opposition from Serbs. (Even though the flag was not Muslim...the flag was a symbol of Tvrtko a catholic king of Bosnia...I truly respect him). That flag had to be replaced and Bosnians accepted it. Why is it wrong for the RS to find a constitutional flag? The CC of Bosnia and Herzegovina has stated that the RS flag, anthem, and coat of arms are unconstitutional; it has never stated that the RS has no right to a flag! Thanks, Vseferović 02:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
What is this? That quote was not placed by me! I used the second quote... And JUST SO YOU KNOW that was passed on November 18, 2006! THE NEW RULING COMES ON JANUARY 27, 2007!!! Have you not heard of a thing called appeal and overruling.

LOOK this comes from November 18, 2006:Old and Unconsitutinal ruling

This is the recent ruling saying that the flag is unconstitutional:

NEW Court ruling (last paragraph) (passed on January 27, 2007)

Here is what it says:

"Finally, the Constitutional Court adopted decision establishing that the Parliament of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and National Assembly of Republika Srpska failed to enforce the First Partial Decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. U 4/04 of 31 March 2006 establishing Articles 1 and 2 of the Law the Law on Coat of Arms and the Flag of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina nos. 21/96 and 26/96) and Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitutional Law on Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska (Official Gazette of Republika Srpska no. 19/92) as unconstitutional. Considering that that established inconformity was not corrected within a time limit of six months from the date of publishing this decision in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Constitutional Court established Articles 1 and 2 of the Law the Law on Coat of Arms and the Flag of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitutional Law on Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska shall cease to be in force as of the date this Ruling is published in Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Final text of the decision shall be verified at one of the following sessions of the Constitutional Court."

There is your proof. Thanks, Vseferović 02:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Kseferovic, very good. Since it is apparently still the de-facto (ie the one that is used although it may be against the Constitution) flag of the RS (otherwise the CCBH wouldn't have left an opinion on the issue) I suggest that we call it precisely that. May I suggest a couple of possibilities:

• "the de-facto flag" or
• "the unofficial flag" or
• "the flag of RS, although it has been deemed against the constitution of BH by the CCBH"

Or something to this effect with a reference to the latest CCBH press release you provided a link to. Regards Osli73 11:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, in the "Protection" section, it seems to me that the flag of RS has not been deemed unconstitutional, but only the coat of arms and anthem.

The "BiH Constitutional Court annuls entity symbols " article in the Southeast European Times (January 29, 2007) mentions: As a result, FBiH does not have a flag or coat of arms, while RS does not have an anthem or coat of arms.

That article doesn't include the RS flag in the list of symbols affected by the ruling.

The January 27 press release by the Constitutional Court of BH clearly states that Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitutional Law on Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska as unconstitutional.

As 74.98.253.27 & Boismortier mentioned above, the Constitutional Law on Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska has three articles: 1 flag , 2 coat of arms & 3 anthem. Only articles 2 and 3 have been deemed unconstitutional, not so article 1.

Best regards, Evv 16:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest a compromise: take the flag and arms out of the infobox (as non-official or soon-to-be non-official), but put them somewhere in the text (e.g. "history" section) as de facto or former ones. Duja► 14:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The flag seems to be official. Regarding the coat of arms and anthem, the court's ruling doesn't take effect until its publication in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which gives us about a month to calmly decide what to do with the coat of arms :-) Best regards, Evv 16:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What seems to be wring here? Read it again! As I, and many others have indicated, the ruling only deals with CoA and anthem: "Considering that that established inconformity was not corrected within a time limit of six months from the date of publishing this decision in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Constitutional Court established Articles 1 and 2 of the Law the Law on Coat of Arms and the Flag of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitutional Law on Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska shall cease to be in force as of the date this Ruling is published in Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina." ARTICLES 2 and 3 of the Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem LAW. ARTICLE ONE IS THE FLAG. IT IS NOT MENTIONED. THE FLAG WAS DEEMED CONSTITUTIONAL IN DECEMBER!!!!!! Do I need to call the Ustavni Sud? Again, the Flag is both de iure and de facto... It remains. The CoA and the anthem will have to be changed within two months. DONE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.253.27 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are calling us blind then I am outraged. What is your problem. Constitutional Law on Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska (Official Gazette of Republika Srpska no. 19/92) as unconstitutional. So it does still incorporate the flag, etc. Anyways, we seem to at least agree upon that the coat of arms and the anthem are deemed unconstitutional. I suggest that we all on that compromise as admin Duja said. So, since they are unconstitutional we shall remove them. The flag, however, we can decide upon later with more concrete information.Vseferović 05:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In my understanding, the flag has not been deemed unconstitutional. The details are explained below, in the #On the constitutionality of the flag section. - Regards, Evv 14:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

All I am trying to do is come to a compromise as Duja planned (please just place your name, and comments separate)

Who thinks that the coat of arms and anthem are unconstitutional:

Who thinks that the flag, coat of arms, and anthem are unconstitutional:

• Vseferović 05:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please place your names in order to solve part of the dispute. So, since we are dealing with the flag, later on... This does not change the status of the coat of arms and the anthem. No one knows for sure when a new coat of arms will come about or if a new anthem will be made (The FBiH does not even have an anthem) so the RS might not make a new one and stay without an anthem. Anyways, even if new ones are not in, this does not change the status of the current coat of arms and anthem, so they are unconstitutional no matter if it takes 5 days for a new coat of arms of two months (No one knows for sure). Thanks, Vseferović 05:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, this issue can't be solved by voting by any means. See WP:POLL. Duja► 10:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

On what to do with unconstitutional symbols

Dear all, Again, the flag and/or coat of arms and anthem have obviously been judged to be against the BH constitution by the CCBH. Their decision rightly takes precedent over the constitution of any of the entities. However, despite this, the fact remains that these are the flag, coat of arms and anthem used by the RS, unconstitutional or not. Just place them there and say that they have been deemed unconstitutional. How can that not be correct? There are lots of examples of political entities in Misplaced Pages which are presented with their 'unofficial' or 'unconstitutional' flags. Some examples are:

• Sapmi,(Lapland) is presented with its own flag.
• Northern Ireland, where the 'former' flag and coat of arms are presented
• Ulster, which is not an official administrative region is presented with its flag and coat of arms, which certainly do not have any official sanction
• Tibet, where a former flag is presented
• Northern Basque Country (France), which is not even an offical administrative region, is presented with the 'widely used' flag
• Transnistria (Moldova), whose very existence is against the constitution of Moldova, is presented with its 'unconstitutional' flag and coat of arms
• Abkhazia, another unrecognized and 'unconstitutional' country is presented with its equally 'unconstitutional' flag

So, it seems quite apparent that Misplaced Pages presents the de-facto flags and coat of arms of political entities. I believe the same solution should be applied here (althought, with the information that they have been judged to be against the CC). OK? If not, please state why. Regards to all, Osli73 09:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion (kind of) went into that direction. Not all the examples you mention are uniform: e.g. Transnistria and Abkhazia are "rebel" entities, and they display their flags according to their own laws, regardless what the "parent" countries think about it. OTOH, RS is not a "rebel" entity by any stretch of imagination. So, in conclusion:

• If RS starts to remove the symbols in question from public buildings (someone above suggested they did, but it's not positively verified yet), they should go out of the infobox into "history" or whatever section of the text.
• If RS doesn't start to remove them, they remain as "de facto" but footnote about court ruling should stay as it is now.

In any case, the flag status should be resolved independently. It seems to emerge that the flag is in fact constitutional; I'd like to see some unambiguous statement to that effect though. Duja► 10:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it appears that the flag is in fact constitutional :-) I agree with Osli73 & Duja. As long as Republika Srpska uses the symbols, so do we (regardless of their legal status). Whenever RS stops using them, we follow.

In any case, please do not remove the symbols too hastily, for the January 27 press release by the Constitutional Court of BiH clearly states that Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitutional Law on Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska shall cease to be in force as of the date this Ruling is published in Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina. So, until its publication in the Official Gazette, the symbols remain official. - Best regards, Evv 12:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Duja, you are absolutely correct, not all of the examples I mentioned are comparable. But I felt they showed that Misplaced Pages uses the flag & coat of arms which are used, regardless of wether or not they are 'legal'. Of course, a comment needs to be amended if the flag has been deemed unconstitutional (which it has). Regards Osli73 16:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Point about legality taken, but the difference comes to whether the entity uses the symbol self-referentially. In my opinion, the Northern Irish flag should not be in the infobox (though it is marked as "former"); see the details of the dispute in Flag of Northern Ireland. Ulster is (supposed to be) a historic article. Sapmi is a trans-national entity, and the flag is supposedly the ethnic flag of Sami people (compare e.g. Australian Aboriginal Flag). I'm also not advocating that the (unconstitutional) RS symbols (only the arms, apparently) are removed completely from the article, just clearly marked as unofficial and moved to "history". Even if the flag had been declared unconstutional (apparently, not), Serbs from BiH would certainly continue to use it, just it won't be hung on government and public buildings; but then, it would come down to situation of Kosovo Albanians, who never had a flag of their own (i.e. distinct from Albanian one) so we don't put it in the article. Duja► 16:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

On the constitutionality of the flag

From what I've seen so far, the flag of Republika Srpska (RS) has not been affected by the ruling issued by the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CC of BiH), and it remains constitutional.

The January 27 press release by the CC of BiH deems only Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitutional Law on Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska as unconstitutional, not the entire law, for it explicitly avoids mention of article 1.

This article 1 refers to the flag, as the November 2006 press release of the CC of BiH clearly mentions: the flag of the Republika Srpska, as defined in Article 1 of the Constitutional Law on the Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska...

Therefore, had the flag being deemed unconstitutional, the January 27 press release should have stated something along the lines of " Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Constitutional Law on Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska as unconstitutional." But it doesn't, it explicitly avoids mention of article 1.

The word Flag appears in the text only as part of the law's name, namely "Constitutional Law on Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska" (Уставног закона о застави, грбу и химни Републике Српске). It doesn't mean that the flag is also deemed unconstitutional.

This view has been shared by 74.98.253.27 & Boismortier also. But, in any case, our interpretations of this could be considered as just original reaserch on our part. Let's see what other reliable sources say about it:

• The Southeast European Times:
  The "BiH Constitutional Court annuls entity symbols " article (January 29, 2007) gives the exact same interpretation, clearly stating: As a result, FBiH does not have a flag or coat of arms, while RS does not have an anthem or coat of arms. In other words, RS does indeed have a flag :-)

• Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF):
  The national Austrian broadcaster's "Staatssymbole ändern " article ("Change the state symbols", January 30, 2007) mentions: ie bosniakisch-kroatische Föderation und die Republika Srpska müssen ihre Staatssymbole ändern. Per Beschluss des Verfassungsgerichtes gilt dies für beide Wappen sowie die Flagge der Föderation und die Hymne der Republika Srpska.
  My translation: "The FBiH and RS have to change their state symbols. By decision of the CC BiH this is applicable to both coat of arms as to the flag of FBiH and the anthem of RS."

• The Croatian Heraldic and Vexillologic Association (Hrvatsko grboslovno i zastavoslovno društvo - HGZD):
  The title "The flags of the Federation B&H and Srpska revoked " (January 30, 2007) is odd and rather misleading, for it gives the impression that the flag of RS has been deemed unconstitutional also. That mistake can be attributed to the article being hastily witten, as its many typoes show. But the text is clear: reached the veredict to abrogate Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitutional Law on the flag, the coat of arms and the anthem of the Republic of Srpska, by which the coat of arms and the anthem of RS are revoked. Again, it doesn't mention the flag's revocation.

Best regards, Evv 14:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics