Jump to content

Talk:Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Herzeg Bosnia.gif

Image:Herzeg Bosnia.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Current Situation

I added the Current Situation part. I hope it will not be taken off again by some Bosniak. (LAz17 21:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)).

You put newspaper repot in ecyclopedia article?! wich is very strange and unnecessary, because it is based on newspaper report about Ivo Miro Jovic statements etc?! Encyclopedia should contain facts related to the topic, not politics. For example this sentece:

"The current representative of the Croats(Zeljko Komsic), elected thanks to Bosniak votes, is not promoting this, but nonetheless the current among Croat politicians that is gaining in strength advocates the establishment of the third entity."

has nothing to do here in this article. I don't mind that you write article: "Croat politics in Bosnia" and you can explain different POVa, but this article is about Herzeg-Bosnia ceased to exist in 1994. Greetings. The Dragon of Bosnia 09:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the above sentence (no matter in what article) should be adjusted to encyclopedia, for example the sentence should contain facts like this: "Zeljko Komsic, a Croat member of BH presidency is against the idea of the Croat entity". This part is irrelevant: "the current among Croat politicians that is gaining in strengt", because it doesn't containt the facts, and isn't based on relevant source. Which current, according to whom is gaining in strength etc? Wikipedia should containt pure facts, neither speculation, nor politics. The Dragon of Bosnia 09:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Look here Dragon, this is relevant to Herceg-Bosna, and it is too small to be an article on its own. Furthermore, Herceg-Bosnia is related to politics. People need to be able to know what is currently going on with it. True, it is not exist, it does not mean that nothing regarding it is going on. (LAz17 17:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)).

That is exactly I was trying to explain to you. Wikipedia is not place for promoting political ideas. If you support third entity, that's ok with me (my POV is irrelevant), but there are other tools for such activities (blogs, forums etc), encyclopedia is not one of them. When you said: People need to be able to know what is currently going on with it. you actually disqualified yourself as an editor. Read: Wikipedia:Relevance_of_content, WP:RS and especially this: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. For instance this quote: Wikipedia content is not: 1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. If you continue to break these rules, I will be forced to ask for mediation. The Dragon of Bosnia 21:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not advocating anything to happen. This is not propaganda. It is simply the current situation with herceg-bosna, that there are moves to form it again. If you feel that what I wrote is not of a neutral point of view then do not delete it all in such a manner, but discuss how to change it to be more acceptable. (LAz17 23:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)).
I don't care, what are you trying to advocate. Simply that is not the content that should be placed in Wikipedia per WP:NOT. Herzeg Bosnia stopped to exist in 1994, so this is not even the current situation. This is my final word, I will ask someone to intervene here if you continue to import spam. The Dragon of Bosnia 13:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You say that this should be put into a Croat politics in Bosnia... yet much of the things under "History" is just politics, so why not put that also on a hypothetical new page? Why do not you delete that stuff? It's because you are a pro-Bosniak nationalist who hates the thought of the Croats having a third entity, so you do not want this to be shown on the page. (LAz17 17:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)).

Please, try to behave, this is place for discussion not for insults. The Dragon of Bosnia 21:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Seccession

Herzeg-Bosnia never secceded. It was simply and orginazation for defense of RBIH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.40.182 (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


SS poster

Has nothing to do with croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia of 90ies. It uses older Croatian name for whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina (which is Herceg Bosna) for events which were made during ww2. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


Move the article to Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna

Google shows that "Herceg-Bosna" has 32k ghits; "Herzeg-Bosna" has 27k ghits for English pages; "Herceg-Bosnia" has 25k ghits; and the current "Herzeg-Bosnia" has about 7k ghits. Based on most common usage: Herceg-Bosna is preferred; more over as is also clear Herceg is preferred over Herzeg in both cases and Bosna over Bosnia in both cases further reinforcing the wisdom of that choice. If there is no major objections, I will move the page in a few days. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


Citation needed

The article is full of very serious accusation with a very little or zero sources. I have inserted couple "fact" templates.

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

this source is indicment- POV of prosecution and(as well as the defense POV) is not acceptable source.

So, I have removed this indicment from "sources".--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

i think it was you who inserted the sentence

The entity di not have its own constituition neither has ever proclaimed independence

into the lead. However, this is contradicted by a source I'm reading right now WAR IN THE BALKANS, 1991-2002. R. Craig Nation. August 2003 p. 154, where it is stated that H-B. declared itself an independent state on July 3 1992. The book is available online as a pdf file. --Miacek (t) 13:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I can confirm Miacek's word. Read the book and bunch of ICTY material. Kruško Mortale (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


I can not find it on the web (the book)...anyway ....who is that R. Craig Nation anyway?? Historian???--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

this verdict (section C. The Formation of the HZ H-B , paragraph 472) says:

In 1991, according to the Prosecution, a separate Croat community was founded in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the intention that it should secede from that Republic

-the key phrase:"according to the Prosecution" -also POV.

subsection (g) :

The purpose was, first , to discuss the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the differences of opinion on this topic in the HDZ-BiH party; secondly, to formulate an overall Croatian political strategy. Stjepan Kljuic set out his position in favour of the Croats remaining within Bosnia and Herzegovina but Mate Boban said that, should Bosnia and Herzegovina disintegrate, the HZ H-B would be proclaimed as independent Croatian territory “which will accede to the State of Croatia but only at such time as the Croatian leadership … should decide”.

So there is no any word that confirms the statement about ptoclaimed independence and constituition neither secessionist politics. it just says that in case splkitting BiH (very possible option in that period of time due the Serbian military supremancy) that Croats should ensure part of BiH for themselves.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The book is available here, I found the link at Bosnian war article. This work is written by a scholar, he seems to have pro-Yugoslav views (and neither pro-Serb/Croat/Bosniak ones). For example, he is rather critical of Slovenia's secession. I am pretty sure that further academic sources are available online, too. --Miacek (t) 11:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me see! Page 170:

The HDZ publicly supported the government in

Sarajevo, and on April 7 Zagreb accorded Bosnia-Herzegovina diplomatic recognition, but simultaneously sought to reinforce the autonomy of Herceg-Bosna with the intent of promoting its eventual attachment to the Croat domovina.19 That goal was partially realized on July 3, 1992, when Herceg-Bosna declared itself to be an independent state with its own flag (identical to the Croatian

national banner) and armed forces

if you compare flags of Croatia and flag of H-B you will see that this statement is nonsense. The flags are similar but not identical-so it means for the flag of the Netherlands (see images!)

Flag of Croatia
Flag of herzeg Bosnia
Flag of the Netherlands

Page 180 :

On June 15 the

HVO negotiated a statement of cooperation with the local Muslim leadership, aptly described by Edgar O’Ballance as “an example of classic Machiavellian perfidy.”51 Within a week Boban had declared the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna autonomous, and on October 25 Mostar was named its capital. The tide of the war had

not turned, however, as the Serb summer

this section talks about authonomy not independence! --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello all. Anto, you don't know how to read the verdict. There is nothing POV in the verdict. At the end of every section there is final conclusion by ICTY, not Prosecution, just ICTY, For example, this is the conclusion in those parts you said that are POV:

The Trial Chamber finds that the weight of the evidence points clearly to persecution of the Muslims in the Central Bosnian municipalities taken over by the HVO: Busova ca, Novi Travnik, Vares, Kiseljak, Vitez, Kresevo and Zepce. The persecution followed a pattern in each municipality and demonstrates that the HVO had launched a campaign against the Bosnian Muslims in these municipalities. The fact that there may have been persecution of Croats by Muslims in other municipalities does not detract from this finding and in no way justifies the HVO persecution.

This is conclusion in the part regarding secession:

[1]

Having considered all the evidence on this topic, the Trial Chamber rejects that given on behalf of the Defence and finds that the weight of the evidence and all the circumstances point to the conclusion that the HZ H-B was founded with the intention that it should secede from Bosnia and Herzegovina and with a view to unification with Croatia.

85.158.36.27 (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Herzeg-Bosnia was not the state!

Croatian community, later Croatian republic of Herzeg-Bosnia was never adopted law about break up relationships with Bosnia and Herzegovina. It wasn’t adopted its statute. In all aspects Herzeg-Bosnia was respecting suvereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina. hr:Suradnik:Mostarac —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.221.10.52 (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. I suggest we remove "internationally unrecognised" from the infobox because it is senseless to apply such a term to an entity which never declared independence in the first place. It is not for the countries of the world to decide what is and what is not the internal structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The ICTY may well have "unfolded plans to suggest that the region would one day unite with Croatia" but that is 100% speculative, even for them. Would there be objection to the removal of this piece? Evlekis (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Croatian language an currrency

I have removed this section :

These aspirations, which were supported by the Republic of Croatia, were evidenced by Herzeg-Bosnia’s use of the Croatian currency and the Croatian language and the granting by the Republic of Croatia of Croatian citizenship to Bosnian Croats.[1] The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) concluded that Herzeg-Bosnia was founded with the intention to secede from Bosnia and Herzegovina and unite with Croatia.

Reasons:

  • there were other currencies commonly accepted
  • Croatian language is the one spoken by native population
  • Croatian citizenship is offered to all ethnic Croats worldwide( USA, Chile, Australia) . Croats from BiH are not unique.Añtó| Àntó (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The Croatian dinar was the official currency
  • Your ignoring Bosniaks and Serbs (not that I'm surprised), Croatian was introduced as the sole official language
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina borders Croatia and citizenship was granted during a nationalistic war. PRODUCER (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Blatant lie for which have you no sources.The source clearly says "These aspirations, which were supported by the Republic of Croatia, were evidenced by Herzeg-Bosnia’s use of the Croatian currency and the Croatian language." No word that says it was introduced as only official language!!
  • Efendija, stick to the topic! What intentions are proven by granting HR citizenship??Añtó| Àntó (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
If it were me at this point, I would report User:Aradic-es for using ethnic slurs, as well as edit-warring to remove sourced information. Control your temper, or you will not last much longer I promise you that, and stop with the silliness. The language in use was Croatian, the currency in use was Croatian, stop removing a sentence that states those facts. Frankly your arguments sound quite desperate, and ist obvious you are POV-pushing, while PRODUCER is simply trying to introduce a sourced sentence in spite of your nonsense.
You cannot counter a source with your opinion, find your own source or stop.
You (PRODUCER) are the last person that I know on wiki who is appropriate to give anybody lectures about civility, temper or especially edit warring (99% of your activity)Añtó| Àntó (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I do have a temper don't I, but I like to think I've learned to control it - which makes me the perfect person to talk about civility to persons who might get blocked because of their lack of control. I also know how people get banned, and trust me, if someone wanted to he could make a report about you that would get you indef blocked in two hours (ethnic slurs!!? with your history??). I edit-war? Never have I edit-warred to remove well sourced information, Aradic-es.
I am NOT lecturing anybody. I am honestly trying to help. If this was a major article, imho you would probably already be blocked. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
That was for PRODUCER? Really? ;) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Somebody wrote an unsigned comment.I presumed it was PRODUCER.Añtó| Àntó (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
PRODUCER., I don't think you should remove the sentence about no official declaration of independence and constitution, I think its correct. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "ICTY - Mladen Naletilic and Vinko Martinovic judgment" (PDF).

Images and text

I can see no reason why that image ought to be removed... its clearly related to the subject. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither I see the reason. You should ask that PRODUCER. or perhaps Mulder and Scully???Añtó| Àntó (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ask a fish while your at it. PRODUCER (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic map

Laz, what is innapropriate in an ethnic map? --Čeha (razgovor) 23:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Rjecina/Bosnian census Don't keep the discussion on more than one page. The countless problems with your map are explained there. (LAz17 (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)).
Only person which had problems with that map was you, or someone with a nationalistic POV. The map is fine and should be returned into the article. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Please stop lying. Many people have had a problem with that map ever since you uploaded it. Its original source, was deleted as it was determined that it was a photoshopped image of a 1981 map from belgrade university. (LAz17 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)).
This map is fine. You yourself helped in making in more precise. Return it back. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Rjecina/Bosnian census Don't keep the discussion on more than one page. The countless problems with your map are explained there. (LAz17 (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)).
Until there is sourced inconsitency or error the map is fine. So do return it. --Čeha (razgovor) 11:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Go to User:Rjecina/Bosnian census, for the map dispute. What you say here is not helping at all. (LAz17 (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)).
I'm sorry to hear that. But my opinion is, without sourced data that this map is wrong in any way it should stay and be returned on pages in question. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
[2] for more information. Please behave properly. (LAz17 (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)).
That was about stalking subject, no ?--Čeha (razgovor) 16:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Just see the link. Here is the main part, "you two should go to the map's talk page and discuss this there". (LAz17 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)).
But in the mean time you could return the map. Any critisism you can put onto that page. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I really do feel that there are too many mistakes in order for it to be included. So, the logical place to discuss that is here, User:Rjecina/Bosnian census. I do not want to have to repeat this again. (LAz17 (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)).
That is just your point of view. Well, for now let it be. We will return to this latter. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Edits by Wustenfuchs

A few questions for your recent edits:

  • What is this nonsense: "Unrecognized entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina (since September 1992)"?
  • Why have you removed Dario Kordic and other politicians from the infobox?
  • Why have you added Bosnian and German currency when the ICTY only mentions Croatian currency as being in use?
  • Why have you removed the fact that it was declared illegal from the infobox?

-- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, no need to call my edits nonsense. It was entity until September 1992 (see proclamation of the H-B), and after September 1992 it was unrecognized (illegal) entity. Clear as that.
Did I? I didn't have intention to do that. I searched for Prime Minister of HB but couldn't find their list. It was new infobox, with new informations, I totaly replaced the old one.
ICTY doesn't say what currency will HB use. Bosnian dinar was in use officialy, and was used, along with Kunas and Deutschmarks. Similiar action was done in Canton 10, if you read papers.
It wasn't declared illegal at it's formation (but later), and even if you need that information, it's place is not in the infobox.
--Wustenfuchs 15:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, how HB could be part of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a state wich stoped to exist with Washington agreement in 1994? I wonder. --Wustenfuchs 15:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You wonder? Well perhaps because the RBiH didn't cease to exist in 1994? :) See this thread. -- Director (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Lol, yes. My mistake. Forget about it. --Wustenfuchs 15:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
By the looks of it you were inserting what is present at the Croatian Wikipedia.
  • It was not an entity that was ever recognized and it was formally declared illegal in September 1992. The fact that it wasn't declared illegal sooner does not mean that it was recognized.
  • The ICTY states: "HZ H-B’s use of the Croatian currency". There is no mention of Bosnian or German currency being in use at the time.
  • Its declaration of being illegal is an important part and warrants mention alongside the other events. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 15:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
It was unrecognized enitity, wee agree on that. Fine, add as an event when it was proclaimed to be illegal. Does ICTY states official currency? And think, why would they proclaim Kunas as official currency and at the same time claim to be part of RBiH? Kunas were used, with Deutschmarks and with Bosnian dinars. --Wustenfuchs 15:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I know for a fact that Herzeg-Bosnia used the Kuna. -- Director (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I also know for the fact. Canton 10 used Kunas until 2010. The question is official currency. --Wustenfuchs 16:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Um.. who cares about that? Whatever was "official" wasn't really used. -- Director (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Bosnain dinar, de facto wasn't in use, but it should be added as one of the currensies. See the older version made by me. I added all official and unofficial currensies. Why PRODUCER has anything against that insisting only one currency in the infobox, can't really say. --Wustenfuchs 16:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Provide some references to back your claims. Do not edit war and do not reinsert your edits until the matter is settled on the discussion page. Also quit removing the Vice President. Why do you keep removing the VP? -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Because it's not common to add Vice Presidents in the infobox. Search the WP and please report if you find any infobox with the VP. Why you insist we add VP? --Wustenfuchs 17:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is common to have all the major heads of government - that includes the vice president not just the president. One example that took two seconds to find is the article of the USA. Just a heads up: I've inserted both Boban and Zubak from your version and corrected the establishment date. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll just add Prlić as PM. We solved this. --Wustenfuchs 18:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What's up with Croat-Bosniak war? Article states in 19 June, you say it's October? Can you explain this. --Wustenfuchs 18:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point I've changed the time match with the dates from the Croat-Bosniak war article. According to the article October 1992 was when the war intensified. Also, according the ICTY CIS Prlic also served as the president prior to assuming the role of PM. [3] -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 18:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused about Prlić. He was president of Community wich existed from 1991 to 1992 (not to be confused with Republic), but where ever I read Boban was the first president of Community and Republic, maybe I have bad memory. I should do a research a bit, find sources wich mention him as president and time when he was the president. But infobox should remain as it is until we solve Prlić problem. --Wustenfuchs 19:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The indictment [4] says: "Mate Boban was the President of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna from its inception, and continued as President of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna, until approximately February 1994. [..] On 14 August 1992, Mate Boban appointed JADRANKO PRLIC President of Herceg-Bosna's supreme executive, administrative and defence body -- the HVO. After the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna became the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna in late August 1993, JADRANKO PRLIC's title or position changed from President to Prime Minister (with his functions remaining largely the same). He continued in this position through the time covered by this indictment. [...] For most of 1992-1993, JADRANKO PRLIC was, other than Mate Boban, the most powerful official in the Herceg-Bosna/HVO political and governmental structures, and, by late 1993, he effectively eclipsed Mate Boban. As President, JADRANKO PRLIC had de jure and/or de facto power, effective control and/or substantial influence over the Herceg-Bosna/HVO government and military." -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 19:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Then what? We replace him with Kordić, since he is more important with title president of HVO, or just leave things as they are now? --Wustenfuchs 19:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Former Countries (WP FC)

PRODUCER, you reverted my edit with explanation "secessionist republic". H-B was a republic, but only by it's political system. De iure and de facto it was just an entity, wich doesn't make it country in any way. But you can say it was "secessionist republic entity". Republika Srpska also is not part of WP FC or WP Countries and it was more secessionist then H-B for sure. This is why I removed this article from WP FC, and do you agree I remove it again? If not please, thell me the reasons. --Wustenfuchs 17:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Entity" is ambiguous. It's a secessionist republic that was never internationally recognized. I'd love to see you make the same argument for the Republic of Serbian Krajina. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 18:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I can't say nothing about Krajina, but if Krajina was proclaimed entity by it's constitution, then yes, I would claim same for Krajina. But I'm not familiar with the subject. How come "entity" is ambiguous? Can you explain? And ofc HB was never recognized, why it should be, it wasn't a country. --Wustenfuchs 19:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What sort of an "entity" is it then according to you? HB was a secessionist republic (with its own army, president, symbols, etc.) that was found to be illegal by RBiH, a sovereign recognized country and UN member, and throughout its existance was unrecognized by the international community. HB, RSK, and the RS were all secessionist republics to one extent or another. None of them received any international recognition. As it stands currently HB and RSK have WP:FC on their talkpages. What we should do is add the tag to the RS talkpage not remove it from this page. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 22:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should add WP FC to the RS talk page. Well, agreed on WP FC then. --Wustenfuchs 22:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

independence and constituition proclamation

The HB did not proclaim independence nor ithad own constituition. If you can find these text , include them.Otherwise the statement remains there.Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. PRODUCER (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Find me the conastution of Herzeg-Bosnia or declaration of independence! otherwise, I will leave this here.Añtó| Àntó (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
You are free to try

[hhttp://www.google.hr/searchhl=hr&rlz=1T4GGLL_hrHR325HR325&ei=4jHQStaCNZPWmwOKy9z8Ag&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAsQBSgA&q=%22ustav+Herceg-Bosne%22&spell=1 Ustav Herceg-Bosne] or "constitution of Herzeg-Bosnia". Without finding it , constituition is bigfoot

Are we sure about the colors on the CR Herzeg-Bosnia flag? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, these colors are correct (red,white,blue)... now it is not specified which red and which blue ???
What I mean is, "red" and "blue" are a group containing a huge number of colors. The colors on this flag are plain red, white, and plain blue. You know, default red and default blue. They're not the red and blue of the post-1990 Croatian flag, or the red and blue of the SR Croatian flag (which are the same as the red and blue of the Yugoslav flag). I've been doing some research into flag colors and correcting such mistakes, but I have no idea about which red and blue should go into the CR Herzeg Bosnia flag, though I suppose its the post-1990 Croatian colors?
Yes,I get the point. But I do not not know what nijansa (how to say this in English at all??) of red , blue or white is official , Especially not how to say that in English. I know that on

commons was entire war about what nijanse of colors for flag of Croatia .btw, Eskimos have cca 20 words for white.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

("Nijansa" = "nuance" :), its all French in origin. Though in this case its better to use "shade", as in "shade of color".) Then shall we use the colors from the Croatian flag in this flag as well, if they were discussed in such detail? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Btw, the burden of evidence is on the person who is trying to prove the existence of something. One cannot ask a person to prove that something does not exist ("prove to me there is no god!"). So in this case, the burden of evidence is logically on the one who is trying to prove that there was a declaration of independence/constitution... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Sources need to support Anto claims, we cannot simply assume he is right. PRODUCER (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
We can't assume anyone's right. Its basic logic: you say a constitution existed? Fine, prove it. Anto can not prove that it didn't exist (for the record I don't care :). You can not prove a negative. Very rarely will a source actually say that something does not exist ("Herzeg-Bosnia did not have a constitution"), that would have to be some kind of book entitled "List of Things Herzeg-Bosnia did not Have"... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I never said it claimed independence or that it had a constitution, the burden of evidence is that of Anto, however difficult it may be is not of my interest. PRODUCER (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Um Anto, you can NOT remove ICTY sourced info. No way. That could be interpreted as vandalism. pls stop
PRODUCER, we still do require evidence that Herzeg-Bosnia actually formally seceded from BiH... For now, your version seems more appropriate to me, but I suggest you have a look and see what sources say on H-B secession. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

All I am saying is that the article can not state HB seceded from BiH or that it had a constitution without a source. I did not notice Anto removed ICTY info. No way you can do something like that mate... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This verdict page 6 , footnote 29:

Croatian Defence Council consists of members of the Muslim and Croatian peoples and members of other peoples and nationalities who recognise the legal authorities of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and who have pledged their loyalty to

them. BH Muslims may establish their own armed units which shall be subordinated to the united HVO Command,

Mostar Municipal Staff

This shows the legal status of HVO (military wing of HB) as one the troops in BiH army. Totally different to theories of independence. etc. There is no proof that HB ever secedeed! And that statement can stay as long as it is not proven that it did. Therefore the sentence (Neither the self-proclaimed Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosnia, nor the later self-proclaimed Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia were ever internationally recognised -not mentioned in the verdict, btw). it would be the same as to mention that Međimurje is not internationally recognized !! (LOL, what??)Añtó| Àntó (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is in the verdict on PG264 "Neither the self-proclaimed HZ H-B, nor the later selfproclaimed Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna (HR H-B) were ever internationally recognised." Stop removing this. PRODUCER (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
No, it is not. Actually, on p. 265, the verdict only incorporates the indictment (which is a legal document prepared by the Prosecution), without necessarily approving its contents. It is inaccurate to cite to that page as if it was a part of the judgement of the Tribunal. 94.169.216.112 (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


Even so, there is no evidence for independence proclamation so that is nonsense.Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ICTY: Blaškić verdict":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup or

Article is mainly consisted of Muslim hegemonistic propaganda and thus unreliable. Should be completely rewritten. I don't think minor revisions would help make it trustworthy. Probably there are no neutral point of view editors willing to waste time on it due to large numbers of Muslim-Bosniak "online warriors" watching on topics like this on every forum, wiki etc., but nevertheless, it should be at least noted on top of the page that there are big reliability issues with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:D02:6D00:8962:A3FF:6E41:C851 (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ivica Lučić

Ivica Lučić is the HVO security chief, the military wing of the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, and is blatantly unreliable for the matter. It is absurd to cite his opinion in the lead let alone as an unattributed fact and without a page. What is this reasoning "sounds like Lucic would know what he was talking about"? Do you know how stupid that statement sounds and what the parallels of it are? Do you know how the reliability of a source is evaluated? You have the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia "evidence showed that troops of the Croatian Army fought alongside the HVO against the ABiH and that the Republic of Croatia had overall control over the armed forces and the civilian authorities of the Croatian Community (and later Republic) of Herzeg-Bosna. The Chamber, by a majority, found that a joint criminal enterprise (JCE) existed and had as its ultimate goal the establishment of a Croatian territorial entity with part of the borders of the Croatian Banovina of 1939 to enable a reunification of the Croatian people. This Croatian territorial entity in BiH was either to be united with Croatia following the prospective dissolution of BiH, or become an independent state within BiH with direct ties to Croatia." --Potočnik (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Croatian_Republic_of_Herzeg-Bosnia/Archive_1&oldid=1143693508"