Jump to content

Talk:Republika Srpska/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Re: Serbia

Hi All. Could I please ask you to collaborate with those people working on the article Serbia since you both appear to refer to the same country, and the articles are of similar length and quality. Any chance of you looking at merging the best bits together? Many thanks. Thor Malmjursson 23:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC) (New page patrol/Recent changes)

Republika Srpska is one of the two political entities that form Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is not the same as Serbia, the country. Read the article for further details :-) Best regards, Ev 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please check the population figures... they seem very unrealistic, since East Sarajevo is basically 50 houses, check on google maps by zooming in, how can there be 80,000 people there, maybe 8,000 possible. Overall we all know that Serbs migrated to Serbia, and there is half a million Serbs in Bosnia... Lies will just act negatively again on world opinion on Serbs. 77.238.193.238 (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Question (about flags and coat of arms):

Why there is no flag nor coat of arms in the infobox in the Wikpedia article about FBiH, but there are both flag and coat of arms in the infobox in the Wikpedia article about Srpska, if the Constitutional Court decision that banned all of them was the same?--MaGioZal 06:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the decision enters into force when it is published in the official gazette of BiH, which hasn't happened yet. The people editing FBiH shouldn't have removed the symbols yet.--Methodius 12:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Besides, the ruling of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina did not held the flag of Republika Srpska unconstitutional. See "On the constitutionality of the flag II". — In the case of Republika Srpska, only the coat of arms and anthem have been deemed unconstitutional. - Best regards, Ev 17:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed.--Methodius 22:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The decision has been entered into the official government newsletter. Shouldn't the coat-of-arms be removed at this time? Nouanoua 15:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've lost the track somehow, but I think that Image:RS_amblem.gif is the current emblem, which is not declared unconstitutional and is thus valid. The old symbol was the one at Coat of arms of Republika Srpska, which is deprecated. Someone with knowledge & sources should put some info about Image:RS_amblem.gif into that article... Duja► 16:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see there is Emblem of Republika Srpska article; it's fairly confusing as it is now. The old CoA article should be merged into that one instead. Duja► 16:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-sovereign territories of Europe

I don't think this template {{Non-sovereign territories of Europe}} is appropriate—first, RS is not listed there at all; second, its purpose is to list territories with special level of autonomy/asymmetrical status from the central government (check each individual case). BiH is (kind of) federation of RS and FBiH, and the two constituent entities, with fairly symmetrical status within the country. If we go that way, then we should include States of Germany, Cantons of Switzerland, Provinces of Spain... into the template, which would render it useless (and it's not much useful now either). Duja► 12:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Duja. - Ev 22:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, and since RS isnt a federal republic it has no special rights in Bosnia and if RS has special rights then 100 % of Bosnian territory has special rights. RS is just a smaller Bosnian entity territorial integrated into the in independent, internationally recognized state BiH. Alkalada 10:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Duja, RS is not an 'autonomous' region in BiH since both the RS and FBiH are equal partners in BiH. Osli73 09:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Finally an agreement between the sides. My view is that FBiH and RS compose BiH. Without it BiH would not exist. FBiH and RS currently are what provinces are in other countries. If this is not farfetched, could we create a wikipedia project that would be used as middle ground (concerning delicate BiH topics). There we could discuss and agree on a consensus before aiming to change large projects that could upset either side. Good news... Vseferović 01:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Kseferovic, I assume you mean a type of "intra-Bosnian issues" talk page, dealing with issues pertinent to the relationships between BiH, FBiH and RS. Before we set it up I think we should float the idea on the Bosnia and FBiH Talk pages as well.Osli73 09:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Something on those lines. Let's see if we could set up such a project. Vseferović 01:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Independence

Does anyone think if Kosovo gets there independence that Republica Srpska will also get independnce? If they do get would they become a part of Serbia or just stay seperate from Bosnia and Serbia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euro.Serb (talk • contribs) 11:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page: "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."
In other words, this is not a forum. - Best regards, Ev 19:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

About Serbian ethnic cleaning in Bosnia and Herzegovina

By the end of year of 1992, Bosnia and Herzegovina was crowded with muslim fundamentalists, who have arrived from Middle East. Their plan was to create an islam country in the middle of Balkan. Bosnian Serbs were merely protecting what belongs to them. So don't think that the Bosnian Serbs are the "bad boys". Even today, in 2007, in Bosnia and Herzegovina there is a problem related to muslim fundamentalists. There were far more worse war crimes and ethnic cleanings done by Bosnian Muslim, but the truth is not revealed to the media and public.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.93.93.86 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an extreme distortion of Historical facts. By early 1992, the Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina has chose to declare Independence. In a reaction to that, the large Serb minority had begun a terroristic attack all over the country and upon Sarajevo in particular. For almost two years, the entire Western World had done absolutely nothing at all to help the victims of the serbian agression (only the bombing of the Sarajevo Market, at February 6th 1994, had somewhat rendered things a little bit differently in that respect). As a result, the Bosnian government and people - who were, by then, totally remote from any religious feelings, let alone fundamentalism - had to accept whatever assistence they could get, be it Western, fundamentalist, or whatever! When a bully jumps at you in a dark alley and somebody is helping you against him, you wouldn't ask, I daresay, whether or not your sole helper and saver is a "nice guy" or not... You would just simply be grateful for his help! 88.155.17.130 21:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
My appologies for the signature on this last entry - I had thought, that once signing in to one wikipedia, I am signed in to all. That is why I had not been aware, my nick would not appear above. Balkanic citrus 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Changing the name of the article

Title

wouldnt it make more sense to call the article "Serb Republic" like the translation says. The present title isnt in english and is confusing to those who dont speak the serb language.71.174.195.224 01:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The non-translated title is widely used in Eurpean media. Also, it's actually LESS confusing, as "Serb Republic" could be confused with Serbia — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 23:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Also note that the original name of the entity is "Republika Srpska", not "Srpska Republika"; only the later would be translated as "Serb Republic". I support leaving the title as it is. --bonzi (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Serb Republic

The english name is not Serb Republic, its Republic of Srpska.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.199.144 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you call Republic of Srpska Republika Srpska i sure do hop you call trhe federation Federacija Bosne i Hercegovine, if you dont you are really stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.216.166.187 (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Why is Republika Srpska translated as Serb Republic?

In the Serbo-Croatian language there is a big difference between Republika Srpska(Republic of Srpska) and Srpska Republika(Serb Republic). If we choose to translate it like this the Croatia should be called the Croat Republic, since it is called Republika Hrvatska. The translation is completely wrong and sends the wrong message. Could somebody please change this.(Honesty 01:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Ask the UN  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 19:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, even Microsoft calls it the Serb Republic... http://maps.live.com/ --Bolonium 02:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? CIS uses "Bosnian Serb-led Republika Srpska (RS)",United Nations uses "Republika Srpska", IMF(International Monetary Fund) uses "Republika Srpska", the Government of Republika Srpska and the Federation call the the state "Republika Srpska". Just because a company(Microsoft) is to cheap to hire literate people, does not make Republika Srpska into Serb Republic. Anyway, if somebody calls it Serb Republic than reference it. (Honesty 05:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 16:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

On 'Republika Srpska' vs 'Serb Republic'

There is a genuine disagreement among scholars and specialists as to whether 'Republika Srpska' should be translated as 'Serb Republic'. However, rather than respect the fact that people disagree over this issue, the authors of this article claim that 'Serb Republic' is a 'mistranslation' of Republika Srpska. This is false. While it is true that 'Serb Republic' is not an entirely satisfactory translation of 'Republika Srpska', there simply is no better translation. Some may prefer to keep 'Republika Srpska' even in English, but there are legitimate objections to this as well - this is equivalent to using 'Deutschland' in English to mean 'Germany'. Translations are, in any case, rarely able to convey 100% the meaning of an original in a different language. Thus, it is simply untrue that 'Serb Republic' is a mistranslation; it simply represents one point of view.

There is no right or wrong answer to this dispute. The authors should make this clear, instead of trying to pretend that their own preferred answer is the correct one.

NB it is true that 'Serb Republic' would be better rendered in Serbian as 'Srpska Republika'. But it is untrue that 'Republika Srpska' is equivalent to 'Republika Hrvatska' - there really is a place called 'Hrvatska' and it is translated as 'Croatia', which is equivalent to 'Serbia'/'Srbija'. But there is no such place as 'Srpska', which is why the word is untranslatable as a noun. 'Srpska' refers to the Serb people, not to any country like 'Srbija' or 'Hrvatska'.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.162.237 (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it is a mistranslation since no official document calls it the Serb Republic. Since Serb Republic could mean any state that has Serbians as their majority. Therefore the confusion between Serbia and Srpska would appear. The Bosnian Serbs did wish to name their state Serb Republic which would in Serbian be Srpska Republika, but that was unconstintutional. Republic of Srpska is not a state of the Serbs it is a state of Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats. Using terminology such as Serb Republic only spreads miunderstanding. And as has been proven the official state name is translated as Republic of Srpska. It means that the name of the administrative state is Srpska, not Serb. What you are trying to say is nonsense. It is like saying that Slovenia should not be called Slovenia but instead should be called Slovene Republic, since before that it was called Styria, Carinthia etc. If you can prove that the Serb Republic is widely used, then prove it and provide evidence. (Honesty 00:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

Official usage vs linguistic correctness

The whole point of the dispute between those who use 'Republika Srpska' or 'Republic of Srpska' and those who use 'Serb Republic', is that it is a dispute between those who prefer official usage vs those who prefer linguistic correctness. If what is officially used is most important to you, then I entirely agree that you should use 'Republika Srpska' or 'Republic of Srpska'. But not all of us believe that the frequently ignorant and ad hoc pronouncements of international officials and bodies should be allowed to dictate academic standards. The recognition of the RS by the international community in 1995 was the product of a desperately and, some would say, cynically reached compromise by international and former-Yugoslav statesmen in which linguistic correctness was the last thing on their mind. Hence, the linguistically problematic term 'Republic of Srpska'.

'Serb Republic' could be confused with 'Republic of Serbia' by people who don't know the area and history, but so what ? Some people might confuse Britain with Brittany in France, or Georgia in the US with the Republic of Georgia, or the Republic of Macedonia with Greek Macedonia.

'Srpska Republika' would be a better rendition of 'Serb Republic', but translations aren't always able to convey nuances in the original language. Thus, the words 'Bosanac' and 'Bosnjanin' only have one possible translation in English - 'Bosnian'. Conversely, the Serbo-Croat 'narod' can be translated either as 'nation' or as 'people', but both are problematic.

The idea that the use of the term 'Republic of Srpska' is meant to convey the fact that Croats and Bosniaks also live in the RS is, from a linguistic point of view, ridiculous. Then the RS should have been called something like 'Republic of Srpska-Hrvatska-Bosnjacka'. But again, if you think pragmatic political compromises should trump linguistic correctness, then yours is a valid viewpoint.

Slovenia is not equivalent to 'Srpska'. Slovenia is a term with a long pedigree; etymologically, it derives from 'land where the Slavs live', and is broadly equivalent in origin to Slavonia or Slovakia. But 'Srpska' as an English word has no etymological basis or grammatical justification.

Paul Shoup and Steven L. Burg, in 'The War in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Ethnic Conflict and International Intervention', give 'Serb Republic' as the translation for 'Republika Srpska' (pp. 355, 367). Marko Attila Hoare in 'The History of Bosnia: From the Middle Ages to the Present Day', uses 'Serb Republic' throughout. Apparently, the Encyclopedia Brittanica also uses 'Serb Republic': http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-535337/Serb-Republic

There is enough scholarly disagreement over this question for the Wikipedia entry to give both viewpoints, instead of trying to pretend that one is right and the other wrong. Otherwise, Wikipedia would simply be representing a partisan viewpoint. And that is not Wikipedia's purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.162.237 (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Linguistically Republika Srpska means a republic called "Srpska". Which originates in the name of the majority of the people living on that territory, the Serbs. What you are saying does not make sense, in Serbian it does not mean the Serb Republic. For it to mean the Serb Republic, the name would have to be changed to Srpska Republika. It would be like saying that Republic of Serbia is the same as Serbia Republic. In Serbian Serbia Republic(Srbija Republika) does not mean anything. In relation to Slovenia its name appeared in the age of Romantisism(i.e. nationalism). No such land called Slovenia existed before, it was called as I had previously said Carinthia, Styria, Istria etc. The people living in those provinces were called Slovenes, from which the name of their new state was derived, Slovenia. I dont see the confusion, new regions gain new names, in a couple of decades Srpska will sound pretty reasonable. These things happen. Yugoslavia did not exist before 1929, then suddenly it appeared, by what you have presented it should have been named the Kingdom of Southslavia. Since Yugoslavia(Jugoslavija) means the land of the South Slavs. Just to add a small note the new names are not that much different from the invention of new nationalities!(Honesty 00:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC))

'Honesty', I respect your opinion, but that's all it is - an opinion. You do not have the right to use Wikipedia to push your own opinion as though it is the only correct one, and all others as though they were incorrect. The correct procedure, where there is reasonable disagreement, is for Wikipedia to give both viewpoints and allow the reader to decide.

'Srpska' is a Serbian-language adjective, not an English-language noun. 'Republika Srpska' and 'Srpska Republika' would both be translated into 'Serb Republic'. By comparison, Bosnians have traditionally referred to their country as 'Bosna ponosna' - 'proud Bosnia' - which means exactly the same thing as 'ponosna Bosna'. In Serbo-Croat or Serbian, it is possible for the adjective to come after the noun, as well as before. Eg the expression, 'Srbi, narod najstariji' ('Serbs, the oldest nation'), which means the same as 'Srbi, najstariji narod'.

The Slovenes don't call their country 'Slovenia'; they call it 'Slovenija'. The Yugoslavs called their country 'Jugoslavija'. To say 'Republic of Srpska' in English is like saying 'Republic of Slovenija' or 'Socialist Federative Republic of Jugoslavija'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.162.237 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I truly do not know where you studied Serbian but what you have just said is completely wrong. To start off 'Bosna ponosna' would in english be translated as 'Bosnia the proud', and 'ponosna Bosna' would be translated as 'proud Bosnia'. Srpska became a noun in the Serbian language when it was decided to call the entity Republika Srpska. This was decided during the Dayton Agreement. Lawfully and linguistically you are wrong. And if you scroll down the page you will see that almost everyone agrees what the name of the entity is. Lastly what is the difference between Slovenia and 'Slovenija'? The J? The fact is that linguists choose pronunciation over indigenous spelling. This is not your problem how the linguists choose to translate it. The discussion here is the name of the entity, not what it should be. If you have a problem with the official name, take up a complaint with the United Nations, the governments of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the other governments around the world. As i have said previously prove what you call 'my opinion' wrong. (Honesty 04:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

I have never said that your opinion is 'wrong'. The point I have made about a thousand times, and which you have consistently failed to respond to, is that there are legitimate differences of opinion on the subject. The Wikipedia entry should make this clear, instead of representing simply one of the viewpoints. If you want to take a more partisan viewpoint, and argue that 'Serb Republic' is a 'mistranslation', that's fair enough - just don't do it on Wikipedia; do it in your own book, article or blog, under your own name. Wikipedia entries are not supposed to represent the viewpoint of a particular author.

To make things clear, I didn't initiate the proposal below for the name of the entry to be changed; somebody clearly agrees with me that 'Serb Republic' is preferable to 'Republika Srpska'. So I suppose out of eight anonymous participants, two of us go for 'Serb Republic' and eight go for 'Republika Srpska' (not, it seems, 'Republic of Srpska'). Do six out of eight anonymous people comprise 'almost everyone' ? I could ask my mailman, my brother, my mum and a few other people to post votes in favour of my position so as to gain a 'majority', but it wouldn't prove things either way.

I'm sure you are aware that literal translations are technically impossible, and that that being the case, translators are constantly faced with the dilemma between translating individual words as accurately as possible and trying to convey the meaning as accurately as possible. Some argue, for example, that 'Greater Serbia' better conveys 'Velika Srbija' than does 'Great Serbia', even though 'Great Serbia' is the literal translation. These are all legitimate debates.

'Bosna ponosna' could be translated as 'proud Bosnia', 'Bosnia the proud' - or even 'Bosnia proud' (which would be correct in certain literary forms of English). If it accurately conveys the meaning of the original, and is grammatically correct, then it's not a 'mistranslation'. But even in 'Bosnia the proud', 'proud' remains an adjective, not a noun.

There is no such noun as 'Srpska', even in official usage. The terms 'Republic of Srpska' and 'Republika Srpska' are officially used, but not 'Srpska' by itself. Can you show us an official document that refers to 'Srpska' as opposed to 'Republika Srpska' ? Does the alleged noun 'Srpska' exist anywhere as a word in its own right, independently of 'Republika' ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.163.215 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Routledge Encyclopedia 'Central and South-Eastern Europe 2006' uses 'Republika Srpska', but translates it as 'Serb Republic' (p. 103). This volume's contributors include Richard Clogg, Richard Crampton, Tom Gallagher, Miranda Vickers, Marko Attila Hoare, Vesna Bojicic, Dimitar Bechev, Peter Palmer and others. So a book compiled by many of the leading Balkan experts in the UK translates 'Republika Srpska' as 'Serb Republic'. Is it really likely that a book of such scholarly calibre would do this, if Serb Republic really were a 'mistranslation' ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.163.215 (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand what you are trying to say, the problem is that it is a mistranslation. This article is not an anti-Bosnian Serb rhetoric, what you are trying to make it. Firstly the sources you give are people who are not linguists, not even remotely related to the discussion of the translation of the name of the entity of Republika Srpska. We can use the translation of Misha Glenny in his book "The Balkans", where he translated Republika Srpska as 'Serbian Republic'. Would you accept this as a legitimate translation. Since it implies that Srpska actually means Serbian, not Serb. I am more than happy to use this but also other names would have to be changed. The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina would also have to be renamed the Bosnian-Croat Federation, since he uses this term instead of the federation of B and H. The fact that some authors have certain 'intrests', while others are just completely unrelated to the subject proves that their opinion does not matter in this instance. Why I completely disagree with you is because not only is it a mistranslation, but is anti-Serb rhetoric, which only brings confusion and hatred. It can easily be said that we should add to the Republic of Croatia the translation of its official name as the Croat Republic. If we are going to talk about translations there is a perfect example of a slavic state that translate their names correctly into English. The Czech Republic which in Czech is 'Česká republika'. Then we have the Slovak Republic which in Slovak is 'Slovenská republika'. Then we have the Republic of Poland which is 'Rzeczpospolita Polska'(not Polska Rzeczpospolita). The name Srpska would be translated as Serbia, if the Republic of Serbia did not exist. But since Republic of Serbia does exist, the international community has choosen to keep the indeginous name of Srpska. I dont see the confusion. If you have a problem with this as I have previously said you are free to write to the governments and linguists around the world, but wikipedia is no place for misinformation, or hear say to be posted. Lastly yes, a book with so many leading anti-experts in the local language is likely to mistranslate the name.(Honesty 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

Earlier, you said that 'The Bosnian Serbs did wish to name their state Serb Republic', but they weren't allowed to. Now you're saying that the use of 'Serb Republic' is 'anti-Serb rhetoric'. How can it be 'anti-Serb rhetoric' to use the name that, according to you, the Bosnian Serbs themselves favoured ?! You can't have it both ways. This is not a political discussion; if you want to see it that way, I'm sure you can read into it anything you want.

I accept that official usage is 'Republika Srpska', and I don't have a problem with the Wikipedia entry being called 'Republika Srpska'; I personally prefer 'Serb Republic', but it's reasonable that Wikipedia should go with the name that's most widely used. What I take issue with, is the claim that 'Serb Republic' is a 'mistranslation'. The fact that 'Republika Srpska' is official usage has no bearing on whether 'Serb Republic' is the correct translation. I'm not arguing that the official name should be changed; merely that 'Serb Republic' not be described as a 'mistranslation'.

Misha Glenny's use of 'Serbian Republic' is entirely legitimate. 'Serbian' can legitimately be used as an adjective referring to Serbs in general, not just the Serbs from Serbia, in which case 'Serbian Republic' is the same as 'Serb Republic'. It's a case in point: 'Hrvatska Republika' could be translated as 'Croat Republic' or as 'Croatian Republic'; you can't simply say one is 'correct' and the other is a 'mistranslation'. Glenny is a fluent Serbian speaker who has extensive first-hand knowledge of the former Yugoslavia. So that's another specialist who translates 'Srpska' as an adjective in English.

You may feel you are right and the experts are wrong; that's fair enough. But why should Wikipedia go with your opinion ?

I'd suggest that the sentence

'Republika Srpska is sometimes mistranslated as "Serb Republic"'

be replaced with

'Republika Srpska is sometimes translated as "Serb Republic", although this is not universally accepted; while some believe that "Serb Republic" is the correct translation, others believe it is a mistranslation.'

That is factually true and something we can all agree on.

Alternatively, the sentence can remain as it is, with the warning sign to indicate that the factual content is questioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.52.238 (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but could we change it a little bit, so that it sounds something like this:
'Republika Srpska is sometimes translated as "Serb Republic", although it should be mentioned that this is not universally accepted. Some believe that "Serb Republic" is the correct translation, others believe it to be a mistranslation.'
It satisfies both sides.
P.S. What are we going to do about the definition of the 'Republic' in Republika Srpska? (Honesty 01:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

This sounds fine to me. I've inserted your suggested sentence into the article, and removed the warning sign. I hope that's acceptable. Thank you for what has been a very interesting debate.

P.S. What are we going to do about the definition of the 'Republic' in Republika Srpska?

When I tried altering it earlier, my edit was immediately reversed, but since posting my objection, nobody has attempted to defend that sentence. I'll try altering it again; if my edit is again reversed, I suppose there'll have to be a Requested Move to have it changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.163.215 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move. Húsönd 23:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


The name should be changed into its English translation.. I thought it was a hoax with that name which is not very well known in English speaking countries. A quick google search threw 3 million results for republika srpska and about sixty million for serb republic. --F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 15:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the disadvantage of using raw google results. Performing the obvious refinement of searching for "Serb Republic" as a single phrase cuts this down to 98,000 hits; excluding Wikipedia, and limiting to English, gets 84,700. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I oppose this proposal. The name of the entity is Republic of Srpska. In relation to the number of results that a google search gives out, it is nearly 200 thousand for "Republic of Srpska" and only 100 thousand for "Serb Republic", and more than half of these pages use Bosnian Serb Republic. Which is correct. Calling it Bosnian Serb Republic is different from calling it the Serb Republic. Bosnian Serb Republic is not the name of the state but rather a way to distinguish it from the Croat-Bosniak Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina(the other entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina.(Honesty 23:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

Republic of Srpska or Republika Srpska. // laughing man 03:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

On the sentence

'Legally, the RS is not a republic in the sense of a sovereign country or a federal unit (such as the autonomous republics in Russia or the former Yugoslavia) as the term "Republika" (Republic) may imply, which is why its English official name is "Republika Srpska" as per the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina'

In all the many books on Bosnia and the Serbs that I have read, I have never heard this claim before. The idea that 'Republika' is not intended to convey 'Republic' does not appear to make sense to me. The RS is much closer to a sovereign state than any of the autonomous republics in Russia. If the authors have evidence for this assertion, they should provide it. Otherwise, this sentence should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.162.237 (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Srpska is one of the entities of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and is a republic. The definition of republic is "a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state and in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them." It is not part of the name, it is like saying that the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not really a federation in the sense like former Yugoslavia was a federation, therefore the name "Federacija Bosne i Herzegovine" should be used. That sentence needs to be changed. I did not see that before. (Honesty 00:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC))
I think the point is that according to the Bosnian constitution RS (or the Federation for that matter) is not a Republic. Therefore the official name Republika Srpska should not be translated as Serb Republic. That it may de facto be a republic is another matter (see eg Kosovo, which although it is de facto a republic is not officially as the Republic of Kosovo).Osli73 (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
From some old 1977 articles from Time about the then-Apartheid South Africa Afrikaners:


The Defiant White Tribe



White Roots: Seeds of Grievance

Change "Whites" and "Afrikaners" to "Bosnian Serbs" and you will got the same result!

Infobox

Can we please use standard infoboxes rather than "cooked" or, worse still, subst'ed ones? The standard infobox seems to be {{Infobox Country}}, which, despite the POV-sounding name, is intended for similar cases. Duja► 12:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree... so why not have a go yourself? It's your encyclopedia too!  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 20:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Why is {{sofixit}} always applicable to me? Duja► 08:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Republika Srpska

Template:Infobox Republika Srpska has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Duja► 15:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian Serb Republic

I appreciate this is a well-worn topic, but I understood that RS was also known as the "Bosnian Serb Republic" - normally by westerners durng the Bosnians War to denote the Serb part of Bosnia or the republic of the "Bosnian Serbs". Would anyone object if I added this to the "Name" section?? AndrewRT(Talk) 20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that term Serb Republic is adequately explained in the name section .--Dado (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Demonym?

Could someone explain and justify the use of demonym that was added in the Info-box--Dado 00:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that information should be in the infobox, it should be in the Demographics section IF and only if reliable references are found for the 2006 estimate. --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

City population

Looks like these figures have a few extra zeros. They add to several times the population of the whole country... —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuizBalloti (talk • contribs) 16:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Map

I have yet again replaced the map shown here

. I would ask everyone kindly not to use this map or to replace it if it appears again on the article because it is wrong. The map represents only territory of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina as Bosnia and Herzegovina while Republika Srpska is represented as not being part of BiH. This is very deceptive and incorrect. I have urged the user who is pushing this map to refrain from doing that but he seams to be ignoring this valid request. Thanks--Dado (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree - the map gives the impression that BiH and RS are two different parallel entities.Osli73 (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

However, the current map is also not right. Because, in the current map, Banja Luka appears as the capital of this entity. But, according to Article 9 of the Constitution of the RS, the official capital is Sarajevo; Banja Luka is the de facto capital. --Cercersan (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, highlighting the government seat (and, for all purposes, administrative capital) should be acceptable. Marking Sarajevo would probably cause confusion, so I believe it's better to elaborate that point in the article. --20% 14:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

To distinguish or not to distinguish?

That is the question. Should {{Distinguish}} be used at the head of this article, to distinguish RS from Serbia? I know it might seem insulting, but there are people who might not understand the difference between them, and after all, an encyclopedia should provide every opportunity to educate the ignorant (and I mean that sincerely). This is not a poke at Serbia nationalism, just a neutral, honest and strong judgement of simple editing sense. And it's not as if it's not happened before (see here).  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 19:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a distinguish line. I understand the argument about equating a subnational entity with a state, but the bigger issue is that the names are easily confused, especially to those unfamiliar with the political situation in Bosnia. Dchall1 (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I also favor distinguishing RS from Serbia. It is easy to see how they could be confused. I don't see how anyone could disapprove.Osli73 (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone does. I originally put the {{Distinguish}} with a link to Serbia, i.e.

Not to be confused with Serbia.

but that has been removed twice [1] [2], so I wanted consensus before simply engaging in a needless edit war. To be fair, the distinguishment of Srpska (Montenegro) is less of an issue, but it is still worth inclusion, as Srpska of course redirects to the RS article.  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, given nobody seems to object, I will re-instate the template. Please do not remove it without explaining here first.  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

History?

Should the first part till the creation be deleted? Republika Srpska was in nonexistance then and the article contains no links. The article is more of Serbia's history than Republika Srpska. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.45.115 (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You’re right on that. The history of Rs should be start at 1992, since before that date Republika Srpska never existed in History. And Srpska is not Serbia, Republika Srpska is Bosnian territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.206.226.144 (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
What? it was still predominantly inhabited by Serbs prior to 1992! It is a Ethnic Serbian entity, the land of Bosnian Serbs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nexm0d (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Srpska

As the official name of this entity in official documents, in English, is the "Republic of Srpska", should I move this article to "Republic of Srpska". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007apm (talk • contribs) 07:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A move to "Serb Republic" was discussed above and the consensus was against the move. You're free to suggest a move to "Republic of Srpska", but I don't fancy your chances. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We should take into consideration that under the official documents of the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina which are prepared "in English", the name of this entity is again "Republika Srpska". For instance, if you see the case-law of the Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina, you will see that the decisions were drafted in English and the entity is always referred to as the Republika Srpska. --Cercersan (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Birth Rate

The Vital Statistics taken from Republic's Statistics division shows that birth rate for Serbs is actually higher than that of Bosniacs and Croats. I heard many times that Serbs have one of the lowest birth rates in Europe. So what is the reason??? Axxn (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Serbs in Serbia have a low birth rate but Serbs in Bosnia have a higher one? Not sure. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Repubila Hrvatska

Why there was Croatian name for Republic of Croatia and then in brackets (cyrillic script of name)?

recent population data

The 2007 data that says that serbs are 95% is wrong. Or at least, the source for that data is wrong. (LAz17 (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

The first president of Republika Srpska…

…has just been caught. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.216.113 (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

History section

The entire history section of this article should be removed. It is practically uninteligible, aside from the fact it is almost totally unfounded considering this state did not exist until 1992.

.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcolavita (talk • contribs) 23:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Repubila Hrvatska

Republic of Srpska

Requested Move to Republic of Srpska

I propose that the article be moved from Republika Srpska to Republic of Srpska. The reasons I support this move can be summarised as:

  • Accuracy - Republic of Srpska is the official English-language translation of the entity's name. Here is just one source:[3]. Does any one disagree that Republic of Srpska is the correct English language name?;
  • Consistency - We call Federacija Bosne i Hercegovine the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina because the latter is its official English-language name. We should be consistent and do the same with the Republic of Srpska; and
  • English WP - This is the English-language WP. Using English language names is the general convention.

Please give reasons if you oppose the move (preferably with sources). Regards. Redking7 (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree - Your arguments are correct and reasonable. --GOD OF JUSTICE 16:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:NAME, which states "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", which is Republika Srpska as evidenced by its usage by the OHR, the UN, USAID, the BBC, European Commission, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Question: Does the English language have a translation for "Republika"? I believe it does - "Republic". RS is not an official Republic, but in name, it is, and this is not a matter of opinion. Might as well rename Czech Republic to Ceska Republika, since it says so in it's constitution.
Oppose, the entity is called Republika Srpska in the official translation of Republika Srpska's constitution by the RS Constitutional Court, as well as in Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement, containing the (state-level) constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Alternative translations of the name are not official, even if sometimes used by official institutions. --20% 16:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Officially, it is a Republic in name. The reason why people oppose "Republic" is because they think that if "Republic" is written in Serbian, it will make it sound like less of a Republic. Well, nobody here is claiming that Srpska is an independent country. But Srpska is a "Republic" in name, and writing it in Serbian won't solve anyone's frustrations with it. --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, no, it's not about status or anything. You probably know that the English language version of the Dayton Agreement is not just official, but actually the original language version. And Srpska's own constitutional court uses Republika Srpska in English-language documents, including the constitution. This is a bit like the dispute about the capital city. Most RS government websites won't mention anything but Banja Luka, but Sarajevo is still the official capital as declared by the constitution.
Now, I'm not ignorant. While the Republic vs. Republika dispute is pretty much a red herring - of course the entity is a republic - the real issue is whether to use Srpska as a standalone noun (which is only possible in the "Republic of" case). There, it's damn near impossible not to make a political statement regarding political or historical legitimacy. --20% 23:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the Dayton Agreement. The main purpose of the Dayton Agreement was to end the war in Bosnia. To us, it is only one of the sources (an important one, but not the only one). If you agree that Republika is Republic (and should be changed as such), I won't spend any time explaining why they used Republika instead of Republic. As far as Srpska is concerned, of course there are Croats and Bosniaks living in the Serb Republic too, just like there are Slovaks and Germans living in the Czech Republic, etc. I don't see a political statement in that, it's just the name. Not every Czech is an ethnic Czech, not every German is an ethnic German, and not every Serb (from RS) is an ethnic Serb. --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Strange. I did not address ethnicity at all (because it's orthogonal to the issue at hand, if not irrelevant), yet you keep bringing it up. The Dayton Agreement as a whole plays no role either. But the (state) constitution is laid down in Annex 4, and its English version is as official an English translation as you can get - simply because it's not a translation at all, but the original document. Yes, "Republika Srpska" is the entity's constitutional English name. "Republic of Srpska" is not, let alone "Serb Republic". Btw, the literal translation of "Ceska Republika" is indeed "Czech Republic", so that's another red herring. "Republic Banana", anyone? --20% 11:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
PS: And "Ceska Republika" is derived from "Cechy", a long-established term for "Bohemia". On the other hand, you could perhaps compare Republika Srpska to Slovakia (created more or less from scratch in 1918) or Slovenia (of which Carniola is only a partial predecessor), both with names derived from the dominant ethnic group. But it's really beside the point - while I acknowledge that naming does have political implications, this case can be solved on legal arguments alone. --11:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Support. There is no question that the name "Republic of Srpska" sounds wrong in Serbian and Croatian, as the word "Srpska" is an adjective and the correct translation of "Republika Srpska" would be "Serbian Republic", or "Republic of the Serbs", names reserved for Serbia proper. "Republic of Srpska", fully translated, means "Republic of of the Serbs", or "Republic of Serbian". This is probably the reason for the resistance to the move. However, it is a simple fact that the English name for the state is "Republic of Srpska", and if I'm not mistaken, there can be no other alternative in accordance with the naming conventions (or any extensive discussion on the issue, either). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
See my comment above. Regarding semantics, if you think about it, "Republika Srpska" was a pretty strange name from the beginning - Hrvatska is grandfathered, sure, but think about "Republika Crnogorska" for a moment... Anyway, I don't really care about the title. --20% 23:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Montenegro is by its Constitution called only Montenegro (Crna Gora). There is no longer a prefix Republic of. -- Imbris (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment - it would be much more helpful to the discussion if, instead of presenting logical arguments for/against, folks would present referential evidence. The Gov't documents cited really are primary sources...what we need to know is what the majority of English-language secondary sources (such as the BBC one given above) call the place. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, this easily becomes a slinging match about the acceptability of sources, so I'll recommend searching for "republika srpska" site:edu vs. "republic of srpska" site:edu (quotation marks included, of course). --20% 18:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose - This is not only the question of correctness of translation but a question of appearances. The Republic of would constitute a too much state like name for a meere entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I suggest that we move the article to Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska or some simmilar name which would better describe what RS is really about. The Constitutional Court of Republika Srpska calls it officially Republika Srpska. If we would to translate the name, then we would be obliged to write the Republic of Srpska which would even further uphail that entity. The Federation may or may not be a state. -- Imbris (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Republika Srpska ,the first recognized fascist and genocidal entity

The arrests of Bosnian Serb war fugitives, including Radovan Karadzic, will end the Bosnian Serb entity of Republika Srpska, Karadzic's brother warns.

If it ever comes to the arrest of Karadzic and Mladic, than Republika Srpska would be proclaimed an illegal creation according to the international law, since then it would be proved that was it created on genocide,” local media on Friday quoted Luka Karadzic as saying. http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/10416/


Leadership of the Bosnian Serb entity of Republika Srpska (RS) was fascist and genocidal, like the army, former USA ambassador in Croatia Peter Galbraith.

http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=193390

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the fate of the Native Americans, would that make the USA an 'illegal creation' too? ;-) Jonathanmills (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Johnatan,Thx once againt for taking the side of the butchers.Relativism is the only way for you to make a point.Back then world didn't have courts.The courts were established so those kind of atrocities and genocide wouldn't take place.So when Karadzic is sentenced for is crimes,will have the final legal status of the RS.The first legal genocidal entity.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What's a "genocidal entity"? Even if we agreed that such a characterization can be used for a country, and that genocide was undertaken by the state, does that mean it still is? I don't think they're still killing Bosniaks in there, you? It is FAAR more appropriate to say that the Karađić administration was "genocidal", not the country itself, though that can also be contested. Furthermore, it is most certainly not the "first recognized fascist or genocidal entity". That's nonsense. Both Germany, Japan, and the USSR (to name a few) were fully recognized countries at the time when genocide was committed in territories under their control. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that Rep.Srpska never existed before and it's borders and existance were made by genocide and mass killings.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The same applies to the USSR as well. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
False, the USSR did it for ideological differences not racial. PRODUCER (TALK) 18:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of the arguments made above about the uniqueness of the situation, if you want to term the RS "the first recognized fascist and genocidal entity", you need to find a source for that that meets Wikipedia:Verifiability. The whole discussion is redundant unless you can. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Map of war crimes which were made on RS controled territories

[4] --Čeha (razgovor) 01:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

'mistranslation'?

Hi all,

just wanted to raise the following point, regarding:

Republika Srpska is sometimes translated as "Serb Republic", although it should be mentioned that this is not universally accepted, as some believe it to be a mistranslation. Those who oppose such translation argue that the Republika Srpska per its constitution is an entity of three ethnic groups so the possessive adjective in this translation tends to violate the rights of the other two constituent ethnicities in the entity by describing the entity as belonging to only one ethnic group.

Some people believe 'Serb Republic' is a *mistranslation* because its constitution states that it is an entity of three ethnic groups and such a name would violate the non-Serbs' constitutional rights? That is completely confusing an issue of translation (which is an empirical, linguistic issue) with a political issue regarding national rights vis-a-vis the RS's constitution. They are factually separate and unrelated matters. Jonathanmills (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

True, and the paragraph actually doesn't state anything else. It's possible to argue on linguistic grounds alone that Serb Republic is a mistranslation as the original would be something closer to Republic Serb. Though it's true that most opponents of such translation actually oppose the entity's name as such. --20% 09:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. Just writing 'Republic Serb' would be incorrect, because - though my knowledge of Serbo-Croat is extremely limited - as I understand it, the 'a' in 'Republika' indicates a possessive relationship to the adjective, which in English we would express by either reversing the word order ('Serb Republic') or using a couple of small words (eg 'Republic of the Serbs'). In any event, given that word orders vary across languages, it's correct translation rather than mistranslation to change them as necessary (it would be ridiculous to translate the French la voiture rouge into the car red, even though that is literally what the words are).
I really don't want to weigh in on the rights and wrongs of what is the exact correct translation (and as far as I understand Wikipedia rules, we should just be using the most common English-language 'reliable source' formulation, listing alternate 'common names' as necessary), rather I'm just pointing out that one cannot argue a country's name is a 'mistranslation' based on the content of that country's constitution. It's totally confusing an empirical issue (what do the words 'Republika Srpska' mean in English?) with a political one (because of the RS Constitution, the country ought not to have a name which indicates Serb ownership of it). Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
In these cases word order in Serbo-Croat is not any different from English - the standard translation of 'Serb Republic' would be 'Srpska Republika'. So this technically is a mistranslation. BTW, I agree that the name issue in English is (or should be) unrelated to ethnicity. It's possible that 'Srpska' will turn into a standalone noun referring to the RS, just as the grammatically similar 'Hrvatska' is a long-established name for Croatia. (It hasn't really done so yet - if a Serbo-Croat speaker uses 'Srpska' as a standalone noun these days, it's still a pretty clear indicator of Serb nationalist leanings, but that might change.) Anyway, as I've said above, the entity's authorities themselves use 'Republika Srpska' in all authoritative English texts. Regards --20% 13:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi 20%, thanks for your very useful input -- I take it you are a native speaker of Serbo-Croat? (I don't mean to pry, I was just wondering. If you are, your English is outstanding, BTW). Incidentally, re your last sentence: "the entity's authorities themselves use 'Republika Srpska' in all authoritative English texts" -- does this mean the article's current sentence "the government of Republika Srpska uses the term 'Republic of Srpska' in English translations of official documents" is incorrect? Jonathanmills (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
BTW, the reason I asked whether you were a native speaker (beyond personal curiosity) is because I think there can be a gap between even very accomplished second-language speakers and native speakers when it comes to the really fine points of translation/word meanings. Jonathanmills (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, thanks for (unwittingly) satisfying my curiosity regarding the name for Croatia (Hrvatska); I had a feeling that was the name and wondered how it fit in. If memory serves me correctly, the word for Germany is similar (Nemacka)? (although I can't accent the 'c' on my Anglo keyboard ;-) Jonathanmills (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and just one final thing (then I'll shut up and let you respond!) -- you wrote "the standard translation of 'Serb Republic' would be 'Srpska Republika'. So this technically is a mistranslation": I'm not sure that's necessarily the case in logical terms. If the same exact words don't exist across languages, as they don't here, it can be that while 'Serb Republic' would be best translated 'Srpska Republika', 'Serb Republic' might still be the best possible translation for 'Republika Srpska'. I can't think of any examples offhand to illustrate my point, but hopefully you can see what I'm getting at. Jonathanmills (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
You're right - it's sloppy to assume a mathematical bijection in translations, even simple ones. More to the point, perhaps, is the fact that 'Republika Srpska' makes little sense in the original Serbo-Croat as (a) srpski/a/o is an adjective and (b) adjectives normally precede the noun. Unless, of course, you accept 'Srpska' as a standalone noun, in which case the most appropriate translation would be 'Republic of Srpska', I think. (It is generally believed that RS leaders had the 'Hrvatska' analogy in mind when renaming the breakaway republic in August '92, but I can't find a quote right now.)
Regarding official documents, well, "official" doesn't quite fit either way. They use 'Republika Srpska' on a formal/diplomatic level and 'Republic of Srpska' towards the general public. Nice examples here and here (pdf). The vast majority of English translations of laws and other documents are non-authoritative, and oriented towards tourists and (especially) the business community, but still official as they are published by government institutions.
As to your other points: no, I'm not a native speaker, 'Nemačka/Njemačka' is indeed both correct and another adjective-turned-noun, and I fully agree with you that the devil's in the details. Regards --20% 20:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

translation cont.

Hi all,

I just deleted the following from the article, as I don't think it's correct:

The word "Srpska" can be interpreted as an adjective ("Serb"), and, bearing in mind language rules for the creation of names of countries in Serbian and other Slavic languages, also as a proper noun. The Serbian name for several countries is analogous: France - Republika Francuska (Република Француска), which is also the official French name for France (République Française); Croatia - Republika Hrvatska ; Bulgaria - Republika Bugarska (Република Бугарска), and so on. However, in these cases there has long existed an appropriate Latinized translation of the name to English.

While I admit my knowledge of Serbo-Croat is extremely limited, the above argument is plainly wrong: just because 'la Republique Francaise' is a proper noun (meaning 'France', literally 'The French Republic') doesn't mean 'Francaise' can be a noun -- although in this case, it can mean Frenchwomen, I believe. It's like saying, I don't know, 'great' can be a noun as well as an adjective because 'The Great War' is a noun (it's the pre-WWII name for WWI). Jonathanmills (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In other words, unless Srpska can be a *stand-alone* noun, it's incorrect to describe it as such. Jonathanmills (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

See my answer in the section above. Cheers --20% 13:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

lead to this article

Hi all,

I don't want to be rude or offend anyone here, but I think the intro ('lead') to this article could be significantly improved. I don't have time to do anything right now, but I just thought I'd quickly post Wikipedia's overview on the subject:

The lead section, lead, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section)

I'll come back to what I think are the main problems/areas for improvement. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

name, translation etc (again.. ;-)

Hi all,

Just looking over the talk page, I see the whole name-translation issue has been a biggie, and I didn't want to seem like I was just ignoring and trumping that discussion (I've now shortened the 'Name' section to: Although Republika Srpska is often translated as 'Serb Republic'[ref: Britannica] or 'Bosnian Serb Republic',[ref: BBC article] the government of Republika Srpska uses the term 'Republic of Srpska' in English translations of official documents.) But as far as I can tell, those are indeed the two common translations of 'Republika Srpska' ('Republic of the Serbs' is much less common on Google).

As to whether they are 'mistranslations', I don't really think that's a) particularly relevant -- the important fact is what it is indeed commonly translated as, not what disputes certain quarters may have with that translation -- and b) as I've said already, appeared to be quite definitely confusing a translation issue with a political (RS constitution etc) issue. Jonathanmills (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the Republika Srpska - PROPAGANDA

I strongly urge some sort of editing/removal of biased propaganda written in this section. No viable references are left for the map, and furthermore the author goes on rambling and stating his own opinions:

"Despite the evidence of widespread killings, rape and torture elsewhere during the Bosnian war, especially in detention centers, the judges ruled that the criteria for genocide were met only in Srebrenica.[27]" Reference 27 does not describe any of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onyxig (talk • contribs) 18:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That statement is lifted directly from the second to last paragraph of the given source. Its not biased just because you don't agree with it. PRODUCER (TALK) 18:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Question: Why editors removed this reference article from BBC News?--BalkanWalker (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This is indeed very biased. I will add to this discussion later. Bit busy right now, so I will leave it be for the moment. (LAz17 (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).
User Producer is very active in this R.S. issue. Apparently he even made a userbox which he shows off as one of his views - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Republika_Srpska - so we can clearly see that his personal views, hatred of R.S.'s existence is leading him to be very biased and thus edits here with political aims and so his work is not neutral and thus not needed here. (LAz17 (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC))
Check the sources, everything stated there is sourced. I won't accept people distorting sourced facts. Besides an admin said the mention was fine and without undue weight. PRODUCER (TALK) 02:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
That user is clearly new to wikipedia and seems to know only how to edit. The admin is not interested in the issue, all that the admin cares is that something is cited. You citations are incorrect. It is not true that many politicians in Bosnia support this. It is only a few, mainly from the party of SIljvanic or whatever that guys name is. The high representative and other politicians have said that he is not helpful for the country's problems and is only making them worse. (LAz17 (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).
Hopefully we can agree on this version. PRODUCER (TALK) 04:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Most surely there is no agreement on this biased version. What was wrong with the previous version? You purposely take out critical thing such as "on all three sides". Serbs were big victims, and a major reason why R.S. was created is because so many hundreds of thousands of serbs were flushed out of the muslim-croat federation. (LAz17 (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).
I removed that Karadjzic and Mladic were indicted. At any rate, other serbs were also indicted, and so were other individuals. They even planned to indict alija, but that radical extremist died before they could. (LAz17 (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).
How about we merge the criticism section and the status section of republika srpska and rename it controversy (since thats what both sections really are), and create a new history section like Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia has. PRODUCER (TALK) 17:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Making of R.S. map

There are some issues with this map. I will collect more data on it, and I think that it is important to include the places where Serbs were expelled from. An important factor in making R.S. is the expulsion of very many Serbs from the Mulsim-Croat Federation. Just something to work on in the future, I can't right now. In fact we should have a "Making of Modern Bosnia & Herzegovina" map, on which we can see all such crimes committed by all sides, no? (LAz17 (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

That would be nice, if you included the territories Bosniaks and Croats were expelled from. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
That would require having two separate maps on one image I think. Making of the Federation and making of R.S. Most definitely this current map is a peace of propaganda, as most of the places that say concentration camp are in fact just detention centers and the ICTY says this. Ceha, a well known to be fraudulent mapper, made this with politically motivated reasons. He sources something and he uses things other than what his source says. Sad, really. Still, I need to deal with other stuff before I can do that. (LAz17 (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).
Maps are a tricky business. They are very powerful tools for promoting a particular POV on an article, and must be as NPOV possible when they depict controversial issues such as this. A map that includes the current territory of the RS and those territories outside the RS from which Serbs were allegedly expelled from would, in fact, be quite POV. It would be like a map of territorial demands or something: a map that depicts Serbian territory and what "should rightfully be Serbian territory". The only NPOV map, if you insist on this, would be one that shows areas of the current territory of the Republika Srpska Muslims (and Croats) were expelled from (along with territories outside the RS Serbs were expelled from). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This changes too fast. Howabout putting it with the Politics of Republika Srpska topic?? (LAz17 (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).

Fradulent maper? Someone realy has a vivid imagination. But it would not be first time for user LAz17 to lie. But what to expect from a user which nickname is LAz, that is Laž (Lazh) which means lie in croatian and serbian?
Map is fine. If anybody does see any error on it he/she is free to tell me about it so it can be fixed.--Čeha (razgovor) 00:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Map is more then fradulent. Stop spreading out lies, and go fix up Federation page if you feel like spreading propaganda.67.169.4.255 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm very happy that your POV does not represent an important thing on wikipedia. Try reading its policies for a change. Meanwhile if you have any error that you saw bring it on.--Čeha (razgovor) 10:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
It looks like your destructive, biased, and baseless western based misinformation really means something.Onyxig (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
If you have any sources which would claim otherways, please do offere it. If not, the map stays.--Čeha (razgovor) 00:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
One map a time ceha, one map a time. For now I will not go about deleting that map out of wiki like I did with your other ones. However I tell you, that you should learn english and read that on the ICTY website it says that your concentration camp locations are detention camps, not concentration camps. That is what you really need to fix. Further fixing should be showing where serbs were flusehd out from what is today the federation, because that is a key thing in the formation of R.S., the huge influx of hundreds of thousands of serbs. Also, I have not removed your map off of this page, so just for your peace of mind, it is not me that is doing that. I may in the future, but at the pace that the ethnic map 1991 is going, it may be a while. Ziveli. (LAz17 (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)).
Amen to that Laz17. U zdravlje!Onyxig (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Laz, you do have a vivid imagination and reality problems. My records and contributions speak for themselves. As do yours speak of you. Sapienti sat.
As for the changes of the map, as the serbs controled more than 70% (72-73 or even more) of BiH can you posible explain to me which ethnic migrations (and from wich areas in numbers) are important to this map and give valid sources for that (UN based prefirably).
Serb forces did control most of serbian majority villages in the begining of the war and a lot of those in which they were not majority. About half of population of todays RS were non-serbians and from which are currently not resigning in that entity. I think that all of relevalent information are shown on this map if you dissagree you can eather try to make your own map or try to source your opinion.
As for ICTY wording I'm going to check it. Thanks.--Čeha (razgovor) 10:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Checked. Even as Human Rights Watch calls them conetration, ICTY calls them detention [5]. Changed wording.--Čeha (razgovor) 10:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you already give up and go edit something related to you. You can really improve Croatia, what do you think? Enough of your undos and harmful insulting edits.Onyxig (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if the truth offends you, but unfortunately that is your problem.--Čeha (razgovor) 00:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not the truth that offends me. I heard enough of these versions of the truth posted by people like you. You have sources that are of course biased and inappropriate for this page, and yet most importantly you're placing something in history section as if the entity was created on caniballism and genocide... Common Bosniak-Croat propaganda. I am not interested in anything and I am nicely asking you to stop this. Dedicate your time to your whatever concerns you. I'm trying to make RS page nice, presentable and approachable. Your political hatred can be directed elsewhere.

Hey Ceha, sorry but I don't support your map being here. From the onset of making it you were doing it because of nationalistic hatred. We can notice several things here...

  • You source ICTY, and yet you probably never looked at the ICTY website and on purpose call those places concentration camps.
  • Territory controlled by R.S. has nothing to do with the stuff. You have territory there marked that is not part of R.S.
  • The other key thing is that Serbs were victims of massive deportations and repression too. That is fundamental in the creation of R.S.
  • It is wrong to show the creation of R.S. without showing the creation of the Federation too. The creation of the two are in parallel.

Sorry. Your map is not welcome, and is not material for encyclopedia because it is created for biased purposes, with the aim to cause trouble. Probably like Direktor, you have personal views that are to dissolve republika srpska. This is why you put such an outrageously biased image up. (LAz17 (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)).

  • LAz17, I have noticed your interventions on a number of articles that are on my watchlist in recent days, and I have to say, I'm afraid, that I am less than convinced that you have the NPOV wellbeing of this encyclopedia at heart. Be a good chap and point me towards any of your edits that do not have a pro-Serb/Serbia bias, if you would be kind enough to do so. And, in the strongest possible terms, I would suggest that you avoid, if I were you, comments such as "you were doing it because of nationalistic hatred", as down that road lies a long, possibly indefinite wiki-vacation. Please read - and then read again so that you are absolutely clear about it - WP:ARBMAC. Any questions you may have I'll be happy to answer. Regards, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Here we go, lots of articles that I have contributed to over the times I have been here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LAz17#Articles_that_I_wrote_or_contributed_to.2C_about_Croatian_Municipalities. As you can see I have created maps of many of croatia's municipalities. I have also contributed a lot to music, especially so in the Kent band page... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LAz17#Music_Articles.3D I am a very constructive person. Unlike these people here who adore their own ethnicity, I dislike all the ethnicities in the former yugoslavia. I care only about the truth. (LAz17 (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)).
If you "care only about the truth", then you will certainly call off your attacks on other editors immediately. And you will recognise that your belligerent attitude in what is supposed to be a collaborative workspace is less than helpful. There is plenty of room to say that "source X puts it this way, while ..." Get around the table, put your points forward, and see how they stand up. But most of all, leave comments and your opinions about others at the door. Thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Why did you remove my comment: Now we have someone like AlasdairGreen27 telling us what to do, and spreading his almighty "power". This just keeps getting better. No wonder Wiki is looking more and more like crap. How hard it is to walk away people and go about what concerns you. Obviously you are not from RS and have nothing but hate towards it.
P.S. Mr. almighty AlasdairGreen27 it's the others and you that are poisoning and spreading hate. We are simply contributing, editing, and removing these ridiculous maps and attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.4.255 (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I do put my points across. It does not communicate well because they are ethnically motivated. Like with a fraud image that ceha had up of bosnia's 1991 ethnic map... he always was CLOSED and on purpose IGNORED every piece of evidence that I and many other wikipedians gave him. He ignored it all the time until I put many things together and got that peace of anti-serb shitfraud out. See for yourself, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bosnia_and_Herzegovina/Image_discussion_Bih_1991.jpg In fact I have a copy of his fraud, it's here... http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/Bih_1991.jpg ... liar took this map and edited it, and now we are having trouble making new maps to replace his propaganda http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/PC110008.jpg His sole purpose is to enhance ethnic nationalism. Oh, and may I invite you to see pages of eurobasket, sport stuff of which some pages I have almost entirely on my own created... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroBasket_Division_B ...so much for the slander that you accept. Check my ice hockey contributions too. Jeeze! (LAz17 (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)). I mean dude, look at his talk page and see how he has been notified many times about his 1991 map. It's just proof of how he does not want to cooperate. He speaks of some cooperation and work but never does anything. It's really frustrating. We're taking this the long way. One map at a time, all his fraud will be thrown out of wikipedia. Two are out, more will go. Step, step by step. It's time to make this a real encyclopedia, not a thing of amateur map makers and propaganda thugs. Like with the Republika Srpska towns issues, they insist on deleting it even after the administration decides that it stays. How insane is that? I think that Ceha is a sockpuppet, one of many sock puppets. (LAz17 (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)).

Yes, Laz was previously warned about uncivity (which can bee seen on his talk pages [6]). Calling someone a liar and personal insults are not new to him.
It would be nice that he uses some civility for a change (suprisingly he is known to make normal behaviour from time to time).
As for his critisism of map, I'll repeat again more than 95% of serbian settlments were under control of BSA. On that territory they proclaimed RS (with war aims even higher, eastern Neretva coast etc...). Federation BiH didn't came into being until 1994. If Laz has some data and/or wants to make another map, he is freely to do so. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Your map is not encyclopediatic, and is here for the sole purpose of spreading natinoalism, not knowledge. You even frauded it from the onset. You cite something COMPLETELY wrong, which is proof of bad intentions to begin with. (LAz17 (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)).
Give some proof to your claims. What are the errors on the map? I'm realy certain that even you can check data:
--Čeha (razgovor) 02:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
You had some 30 concentration camp locations on your initial map. That is my point. You cite ICTY when in fact you do not even look at it, thus your aims are nationalist hatred and undermining R.S. Granted you do not have I DO NOT SUPPORT R.S.'s EXISTENCE like Direktor does, you still think that. (LAz17 (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)).
My personal opinion is not important in this issue. Objective behavior is. Any of this camps can be checked. You can google it out. And as for name of the camps I changed it to detentions, even if some organisations like Human rights watch call them concentration. ICTY wording...
Map is valid. --Čeha (razgovor) 03:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Your skewed opinion of whether map is correct or not is the last thing to be discussed. The point is that map does not belong in history/criticism or any sections of RS since it does nothing but tarnish the image. We can argue until dawn how i(n)correct opinionated and (un)biased it is but that's not even the point. Point is how some people can be so persistent in pushing their things across. I really wonder what hell would break lose if someone constatly went posting maps and images of other side camps/logors. I just dont get what gain you have in fighting this day after day. Then we wonder why YU didnt survive...it's obvious that it never was supposed to. Three people that cant stand each other. 67.169.4.255 (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
p.s. If you spent half the time on imroving HB or Fed sites instead of spreading lies here, maybe we'd all get along better. 67.169.4.255 (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
For beginning I will say my thinking about Republika Srpska and Bosnia. Republika Srpska must be abolished not because it is born with ethnic cleansing (this is good reason), but because Bosnia can't live in today limbo.
Radovan Karadžić from 1991 is not needed in article, because then he has been nothing else but convicted theif which has become powerfull president of national political party. Maybe we can add his statement in new section called background, but not in history of Republika Srpska because it has created latter.
War crimes commited by armed or paramilitary forces of Republika Srpska 9 January 1992 and end of war are OK for section History, because ther represent history (or creation) of Republika Srpska
Nobody has writen that Republika Srpska has been created against Bosnia and Herzegovina constitution, and because of that is has been illegal ?--Rjecina (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about?? R.S. has been created because of Dayton. It is something that all sides agreed on. It is a recognized entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The High Representative said that it will not go away. It is here to stay. You say that BiH can not exist with Republika Srpska/limbo... what on earth are you talking about? It has been over 10 years since dayton has been signed, and implemented. There is absolutely no limbo. The country is doing fine. Republika Srpska has lived so far and it will live further, and there is no limbo because of it. The entity is the more advanced entity anyways, and it is doing more to join the EU and its leadership has openly said that it does not want to withdraw from bosnia. Furthermore the main croatian parties there have also supported R.S. and also want their own entity. I agree with you that Karadzic's statement is not needed where it is, and there is a politics of Republika Srpska page for that. You say those war crimes are okay... well you ignore the war crimes committed against the serbs. The crimes committed against the serbs are equally important in the creation of republika srpska, and this is really why it does exist today. We can see that hundreds of thousands of serbs have been expelled from the federation. Why show only one side of the story? Why not both?? Rejcina, you seem to be more constructive when it comes to working on this thing here, and in general... what do you think of a section that says war and in it we could include both crimes that serbs did and crimes that were done to the serbs? We could have that section that says see war of bosnia and herzegovina for more information, and have a little background for what happened there? This would be fair I think? (LAz17 (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)).
Hundreds of thousands of Serbs? On the territories which were not occupied by BSA it were max 50 000 serbs (out of 1 366 104 which were in BiH) and that mostly in Zenica and Tuzla. Once again, Laz, if you think that you have enough material (sourced off course) you are free to make some other mao. This map is fine. Bosnian Serbs had all of the weapons and had great advantige in the begining of the war. I can even qoute you some diplomats (like Holbruk, maker of Dayton agreement) in wich their leadership is described as "genocidal and fascistic". There are also numerous ICTY convictions (and charges) for genocidal behaviour (ethnical cleansing and massacers) of members of rs military and goverment structures. Muslims and Croats were not even in position for making war crimes onto the serbs for most of the conflict. --Čeha (razgovor) 05:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Ceha, don't play dumb. Everyone knows that RS almost lost the war. Add up the serbs in Mostar (20,000), Sarajevo (150,000), Tuzla (20,000), Tesanj (3,000), Gradacac(11,000), Gracanica(14,000), Jajce(9,000), Drvar(17,000), Zavidovici(12,000), Maglaj(13,000), Olovo(3,000), Zenica (22,000), Kljuc(19,000), Sanski Most(25,000), Grahovo(8,000), Petrovac(12,000) and many more. So yeah, don't play dumb. Everyone was genocidal. Serbs were 30% of the people who died in the war. As for ICTY, you have proven that you did not even look at any ICTY stuff when you made your map. (LAz17 (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)).
Hahaha. Good one. So you realy want to say that bosnian Serb war goverment in 1991 begun with genocidal campaigns (for which they are charged in ICTY) because of things that would happen in 1995? Laz get a grip onto yourself. Again, if you wish to make some quazi map you are welcomed to try it. --Čeha (razgovor) 20:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
You do not understand. The point is that R.S. creation lasted 1992 to 1995. All events in this time frame are important to its creation which happened in 1995. R.S. was declared in 1992, but it became a recognized entity, thus created, in 1995. The borders of R.S. between 1992 and 1995 changed many times, thus when we talk about R.S., we should observe what it was at in 1995 and we should look at what came into play for what brought it to its result in 1995. The things that brought it about were crimes against all three groups. What is there not to understand? Besides, in 1992 there was rs of bih, some long name I believe, no? This is about plain R.S., not wartime unstable entity. Again, your issue is that you do not agree that there were any misdoings against the serbs, for you are a biased individual. (LAz17 (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)).
Rjecina, please do tell me where I denied any war misdoings against the Bosnian Serbs?
As to my knowledge, RS was created in 1992, but legitimized in 1995. Entity is the same (although I think that for first few months when they thought they could conquer whole of BiH it had the name RS of BiH). This is a legal issue in which I do not think to have enough capabilities to solve:) If you have some source or something similar that would be good.
Data of which you speak can not be shown in the same map for number of reasons, for example how are you going to show a terrain in which more than one party comited war crimes? Because of things such as this, war crimes which were commited on Serbs should be presented on another map. Unfortunately I don't have the time for collecting all of that data. If you have all the needed data, put it on my page, and I'll make a map of it and that should be ok, right? --Čeha (razgovor) 22:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Look up at what you said, quote-Hundreds of thousands of Serbs? On the territories which were not occupied by BSA it were max 50 000 serbs (out of 1 366 104 which were in BiH) and that mostly in Zenica and Tuzla.-quote THERE YOU GO! You say you have no time to make such a map... of course you do- but your source for data is shit. You look at biased stuff and source the ICTY. If you look at the ICTY you can easily see where what is. They have NUMEROUS locations there. Only problem is that you make map citing a source, but in reality you never even look at that source. As for making a map with showing all three sides, it is very easy - you just put a different color, each representing a crime that one side did. But what does an amateur cartographer like you know? (LAz17 (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)).
Read again my qoute. What does it says?
I stand by my words. Give me list of municipalities with sources and I'll make a map of it.
Laz, You were already warned for your uncivic behaviour. Maybe you realy need time to cool of? If do, please do continue with names calling and swearing.
Also, let me make some things more clearer to you. In that new source to the map I've given there is a complete list of detention camps in BiH. For example in municipality of Bosanski Brod existed detention camps run by BSA and HVO, or there was ethnical cleansing in Ozren municipalities by both ABiH and BSA. If you try to show all of the combinations (3+1 armies) you'll get a parrot map. That's why there is a need to separate maps. It is realy simple.--Čeha (razgovor) 08:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I gave you the list of sources, the ICTY interactive map. Instead you use this outdated report with ALLEGED places. As for map, it is simple to make one with all stuff on there. BTW, your map shows more serb land controlled - serbs never had that much of livno. (LAz17 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)).
They did. In the begining of the war. There even were some mines on that positions. On the first page of [7] there is a list of detention camps with data which side runed them and if are they confirmed or not. ICTY maps only counts places for which ia a process in ICTY. As you can see from Karadžić indicement [8] Those areas include but are not limited to the municipalities of: and now the list goes on...
As for data for war crimes commited on Serbian population; here is a list for all detention camps ([9] which included serbian population till 1994). However, there is no mention of ethnical cleansing of Serbs in that areas (or later) [10]. If you have some source of it, you should give it or in the oposite the map is going just to show locations of detention camps which had Serbian population. Also, I'd like to ask you to give me exact location of some thing on the net, and not just main portal for example, there was a ethnical cleansing of BiH Serbs in /link here which would greatly improve my time of making of map. This map will show whole of the territory which were controled by army other than BSA.--Čeha (razgovor) 23:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


Direktor - there is no reason for you to delete the entire war section, and the population statistics down at population geography section. Read what rječina wrote, and stop your childish behavior. (LAz17 (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)).

Republika Srpska is created in 1992 against constitution of Yugoslavia and Bosnia and because of that was illegal. With Dayton agreement Republika Srpska has become legal, but in law she was illegal between 1992-95 (you can't use 1995 decision for retroactive change).
Comment about limbo is my personnal comment not related with this article. Reason for writing has been similar attacks and comments between users who is for what.--Rjecina (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Declaration of BiH to succeed was illegal too. One illegal action triggered the other. R.S. is legal starting in 1995, so what is the problem here? (LAz17 (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)).
International community has declared with Badinter Arbitration Committee in 1991 :"the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia is in the process of dissolution" and "Applying the principle of uti possidetis, the commission concluded on 11 January 1992 that The boundaries between Croatia and Serbia, between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, and possibly other adjacent independent states may not be altered" and "The Commission decided that it should not at the time, because unlike the other republics seeking independence, Bosnia and Herzegovina had not yet held a referendum on independence" (January 1992). After referendum answer Yes on referendum there has been legal right of Bosnia to declare independence (in eyes of international community) and because of that Declaration of BiH was legal. --Rjecina (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
All secession is illegal if BOTH SIDES do not agree. The other republics did not all agree, so therefore the secession was illegal. Simple. (LAz17 (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)).
Wrong. If we will start with this, then there is new problem. If we will look Yugoslav constitution presidency of Yugoslavia has been illegal from 1991, or better to say after Serbian parliament has changed presidency members from Kosovo and Vojvodina. Only parliament with possibility to recall presidency member from Kosovo or Vojvodina has been parliament of Kosovo or Vojvodina.
My question is: With which republic has needed to agree Bosnia about "secession". With coup leadership of Serbia (it has organized 5 coups (2 failed)), puppet rulers of Montenegro or illegal Yugoslav presidency ?--Rjecina (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Many serbs feel that the 1974 constitutional amendments, imposed by Tito, are not democratic at all. Therefor from the outset the increased autonomy to vojvodina and kosovo are bad steps. Furthermore, milosevic could never have been in power if the albanians did not veto-democracy. The only reason why the radicals are not in power right now is because of the 15% vote that the many mionrities in serbia contribute. Add some 30% albanian votes and there we have it, all that could have been overturned in a coalition with the western oriented parties. Change is possible. The only reason why there were problems in 2000 was because the west pumped in 10s of billions of dollars and the second round of elections was not granted. As for breaking off... all states left in the country must agree to it. It's like if Vermont wanted to break off of the US... all other states should agree. Otherwise no. For example, the only reason why montenegro's rigged referendum is okay for sucession is because Serbia said okay. The point is that the internal yugoslav borders were never meant to be their own countries. This was done when the Banovina of Croatia was created, but the borders since then did not mean to break up. (LAz17 (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)).
Wrong. That can be your personal opinion, but. Yugoslavia broke appart. That did Badinter Arbitration Committee in 1991 said. Republic borders became borders of the states. Those borders are mostly old and historical (anyone can see that most of Croatian borders are from 18th century) and changes wich were made in the mean time went mostly in Serbian benefit. As for banovina border, that is under "what if" section. Because BiH was not divided Croats have two mother countries now, serbs more than one (I do not know exact number and I do not wish to offend any one, and Bosniaks one. It is basicly a continuation of a tampon state BiH, while it was previously just a province of some empire.

--Čeha (razgovor) 08:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

LAz17 I will agree that 1974 constitution has created never expected problems (Kosovo and Vojvodina) which will become roots of rise of nationalism in Serbia. Tito has wanted (in my thinking) to make Albanians and Hungarians happy but he has never thinked about Serbian reaction.

About borders we are all living in myths. If we look 1918 and 2009 Serbia has lost Macedonia (and Kosovo ?), but it has recieved Vojvodina from Hungary (and part from Croatia). Croatia has lost Eastern Syrmia, but has recieved Istria. With that I want to tell that nobody has lost anything, but we are having nationastic myths--Rjecina (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

C'est la vie like the Frenchmen would say. The surfaces of Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro and BiH in 1991 are all basicly the same if we comparethem with kingdom of Serbia, part of krownlands of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia which entered first Yugoslavia, kingdom of Montenegro and krownland of BiH (difference is a few square miles). Only countries which were substantialy enlarged were Slovenia and Macedonia which did not even existed in 1918 (it was a Serbian province). We could go into land concesions after ww1 (Rijeka, Zadar, Baja) but that would basicaly be a diferent story and out of comunist's reach. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Ceha...Regarding your edits. You keep posting this file yet it is disputed and yes the sources are crap, since you made the map, then started hunting for the random pages (and getting help from fellow users) to justify it. Can we just agree to disagree and cant you move on with some nice aditions to this article? I dont want to dispute and argue this forever. I'd rather spend this time editing better things.Onyxig (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
We can agree that we disagree, but that do not change anything about validity of the sources. That map is a part of RS history. If you wish, you can add some suggestions how to make it a better, or improve it... --Čeha (razgovor) 23:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes part of history according to whom. ICTY hehe. You created the map. Sources are biased, obtained at later stages from soemone else and were disputed 1000 times just in this section. Please don't post this anymore until you find an objective map that shows all the Bosnia. Onyxig (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
According to wikipedia policies UN sources count as valid. This map has been dispuded, but all of the remarks where turned down... Map is valid. Perhaps somebody doesn't like it, but it is made on valid data. That is the main reason why it should be here...--Čeha (razgovor) 01:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
No it wasnt made on valid sources, look at convo you had with me and LAz17. Remarks were turned down by who??? You. man...Onyxig (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Realy, no. As you can see on map pages [11] user Laz puted a request for deletion of the map which did not pass. Also, you made vandalism when you deleted sources from that page...--Čeha (razgovor) 01:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
he put request because your sources were not valid. Then you got help (after the map was created) from PRODUCER, and you put those sources, which makes no senese since map has been created before them. How can you create soemthing, and then source it after someone sends you the links? It's not vandalism, I want to see where your real sources are (dont add someone elses)Onyxig (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not certain that you know how to use wikipedia. Do you see file history in the bootom of the page ? [12] Any change, and any source which was laterly added is recorded there. That what you've done is vandalism, if you do not belive it try searching for the right definition in wikipedia. I'm sure it will help>:) --Čeha (razgovor) 01:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The only reason why the thing did not pass is because you put the map on commons too. Therefore any request on wiki is worthless, as it has to go through commons, not here. I do not know how to work with commons, so I'm out of luck, and I do not have the time to learn it now. As for the map source, it is incomplete as it was made during the war, and it further sucks because all reports of made during war have been exaggerated as they were based off of reports from the sarajevo bosniaks who claimed that 300,000 people were killed when recent experts conclude that 100,000 were. (LAz17 (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)).

As I said previously, map shows locations of detention camps (basicly war prisons) which probably almost every municipality had. Places of masacres are very well documented, and for ethnical cleansing difference between 1991 status and 2009 (or some war year) is good reference ("pokazatelj"). Reports of Sarajevo b goverment are not included into this map and were just estimations... If you have some newer data (for year 1995) about location of detention camps it would come very handly. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Map

The Map to be used is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BH_municipality_location.svg . If someone changes it back to this miserable excuse for a map, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RS_alternativ.png , then we will have to take further measures. (LAz17 (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).

Its the only map that matches both the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Brčko District. PRODUCER (TALK) 02:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The map is of very poor quality, and its borders DO NOT MATCH well at all. It is wrong. Not only is it wrong, but the map that was on there before is far more accurate and we can see all municipalities clearly on it. Do not put that bad map back. (LAz17 (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).
Shame on you. You changed the maps of the Federation and Brcko district too. This is fixed and I will report this on the Bosnia wikiproject group. (LAz17 (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).
I did this so all the entities within Bosnia have a similar image, this was purely an aesthetic decision. PRODUCER (TALK) 03:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The current images are similar and are better looking and more correct than yours. I feel that they should stay. The R.S. one is particularly nice, and perhaps the best solution is to upgrade the Federation's map to be as nice, especially with the shinny-ness. It looks like something done in Correl-Draw. The problem is that I do not have such raster image files. (LAz17 (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).

Page protected

This article has been sysop protected due to edit warring. Tan | 39 22:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Rm unconstructive comments

I've removed some unconstructive anon comments that you were having fun edit warring over. Sorry. Don't restore them (or else). P, stop restoring comments that merely insult other users, and stop calling such removal vandalism. Anons: play nicely or this talk page gets semi protected too. All: this page is to discuss improvements to the article William M. Connolley (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Serbias

What is the difference between the words (I mean the words, not the countries) "Srbija" and "Srpska" ? Are they homonymous adjectives, or is one of them a noun, and the other one, an adjective ? Or dialectal variants of the same word ? Apokrif (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Srbija is a country name, in english Serbia | Srpska means the one who belongs to serbs, or in english Serbs' | You can also say Srbijanska or in english Serbian (which means the one who belongs to serbs living in Serbia) One is a noun the other possesive adjectif. Hope this helps.Onyxig (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

History

Just FYI AlasdairGreen27, whole section will have sources added to it briefly, so just like PRODUCER you had no reasons removing this paragrpah. I have added sources needed template and will remove it when I expand the section and add some nice references. For now there is no reason to remove the paragraph. Thanks! Onyxig (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"The official aim of this act, stated in the original text of the Constitution of Republika Srpska, later amended, was to preserve the Yugoslav federation." - this is debatable [13][14]
"It is important to note that although Republika Srpska is a quite young entity, its history, and the history of Bosnia in general, has begun centuries ago and the geographic region on which it currently resides has been deeply affected by numerous wars from medieval ages, Ottoman Empire occupation to WW1, WW2, and finally the Bosnian war." - unsourced commentary that oxynig added
"The leading Bosnian Serb party, the Alliance of Independent Social Democrats (SNSD), called on other political parties in Republika Srpska to organize a referendum on police reform in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The SNSD said the referendum should give a clear picture on whether the Bosnian Serb police should be dismissed or not in the process reforms under which a single police force is to be created on the state level. "I do expect that the answer of most of citizens of Republika Srpska would be no," Rajko Vasić, member of the SNSD leadership said. He also said the party, which won exactly half the seats in the National Assembly of Republika Srpska on October 1 2006, would suggest the referendum on police reform as an issue to be discussed at the first next session of the entity's parliament. Earlier this year the leader of the SNSD and the current RS Prime Minister Milorad Dodik said he would be ready to sacrifice negotiations with the European Union on the eventual integration of Bosnia and Herzegovina into the Union, if the RS police is to be abolished as part of the police reform on Bosnia's state-level. " unsourced, undue weight, about the police reform - PRODUCER (TALK)
All of the sources will be provided for the unsourced paragraphs, doesn't mean the whole text will go out. That's why a template exists to revisit the section and add sources. So you shouldn't remove quarter of an article when template is put tu revist the texts. 205.248.102.81 (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Your source is a travel site, you cant possibly be serious. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. WP:V - PRODUCER (TALK) 18:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I realized when I read the whole thign that the source is a joke so I updated it.205.248.102.81 (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:RS still lacking reliable sources - PRODUCER (TALK) 19:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Many articles on wikipedia are under constant developement and improvement. So few things may not be sourced on RS, and once again...(!) thats why we have the improvement templates, but please do not question reliability, just to blow some hot air. 205.248.102.81 (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
When sourced images like the map Ceha made keeps being removed and questioned by Laz and oxy its ok for them right? -PRODUCER (TALK) 20:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a huge discussion regarding that map above. Not only its sources, but its validity and self-creation displaying only one entity are being disputed. This concerns referencing paragraphs in the article, and putting sources that reference these conferences/statements etc. Thanks. 205.248.102.81 (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
"How can you create soemthing, and then source it after someone sends you the links?" hypocrites - PRODUCER (TALK) 20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Why are you insulting me? You are comparing self made genocidal map with quotes/conferences/newspaper articles?! In addition, am I blind or do you publicly on your page support abolishement of RS. Talk about a fair editor. 205.248.102.81 (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
You have still failed to provide reliable sources for your commentary/original research WP:NOR, and valid arguments for the "official aim" and the police reform, I am obliged remove this challenged material if you dont provide them. PRODUCER (TALK) 19:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Using modern terms to describe the nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Hello everyone,

I've noticed that many of the articles dealing with Bosnia and Herzegovina use the terms "Serbs", "Croats", and "Muslims" when discussing the three nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina. While those terms have historically been used and are technically correct, I believe it would be more accurate to use the modern terms "Bosnian Serbs", "Bosnian Croats", and "Bosniaks". This would reduce the confusion that is raised when one simply says "Serbs" and "Croats" since this implies the people of Serbia and Croatia. The Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats are distinct from Serbs in Serbia and Croats in Croatia and therefore the prefix Bosnian- should be used when referring to them. The term "Bosnian Muslim" is also an outdated term that has been replaced with "Bosniak". I believe that by using the correct and modern terms in all the articles about Bosnia and Herzegovina and the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina the reader would be better served. Please let me know what you think about this idea.

DefenderOfTruthAndJustice

Yes, but as BiH is not just Bosnia, it includes Herzegovina as well, corect titles should be "BiH Serbs", "BiH Croats" and "BiH Bosniaks" (because there also exists Bosniaks outside BiH as well). Also if we talk about things before 1993 (when the Bosniak name was introduced) it would probably be right to use the name BiH Muslims (because that people declared them as such in that period), and if you look at Muslims in Croatia and Montenegro, only part of them declared themselves as Bosniaks in the newer censuses... --Čeha (razgovor) 15:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

While "Bosnian and Herzegnovinan Serbs" etc. would be more technically correct than "Bosnian Serbs", the latter is the commonly used term and we should try to stick to that, per WP:COMMONAME. I agree that it is better to use Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosniaks than simply Serbs, Croats and Muslims unless the context already makes it clear. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, "BiH Serbs", "BiH Croats" and "BiH Bosniaks" would be the most correct. It is a short name, and if we use prefix for 2 out of 3 nations it would be politicly correct tu use it on the third party also (as every one of them is equaly constituent and aboriginal (at least on part of BiH)). --Čeha (razgovor) 19:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood me. I'm saying that we should use "Bosnian Serbs" and so on because that's the most common name used, which is what WP:COMMONAME suggests we should use. "BiH Serbs" is not a commonly used term. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
If we speak of a "modern terms" then we can not use a name which includes just part of the state ("Herzegovian Serbs" are not obviously not included). Also I don't see why if two nations would have adjectives in front of them, that a third one would not (more so as it was previously caled BiH/Bosnian Muslims...). --Čeha (razgovor) 07:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The rule on Wikipedia is that we use the most commonly employed term, not the one that we think is most accurate. You'll also notice that nationalities do not always include name of the whole country in other cases. For example, the article on citizens of the United Kingdom is called British people. As for the Bosniaks/Bosnian Muslims issue, please see the Bosniaks article. Bosnian Muslims redirects there, so if you want to make an iussue of it, take it up on that article's talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
There exists no dispute in calling citizens of United Kingdom British. However it exist dispute in calling people of Bosnia and Herzegovia simply Bosnians. It would be as you call somebody from Trinidad and Tobago, as person from Trinidad, when he is from Tobago. This was many times mentioned as usage of adjective Bosnian does not cover whole of Bosnia and Herzegovia. Therefore, I think that is better to let the old names then to put disputed ones in articles. There should be some wikipedian rule about that.
As for Bosniaks/Bosnian Muslims there is no issue, but if they are mentioned in contex with 2 other constitute nations and if those two nations get some adjectives before their names (there does not exist seperate ethnical groups Bosnian Croats, they are Croats by ethnicity) so should the Bosniaks get. It would be as someone would speak about Croats, Bosnia-herzegovian Serbs and Bosnia-herzegovian Bosniaks. It doesn't fit, does it? And after all there exist Bosniaks outside Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The British case does have similarities - Great Britain is only part of the United Kingdom, which also includes Northern Ireland. Britain is often used as shorthand for the UK, in the same way that Bosnia is often used as shorthand for Bosnia and Herzegovina. If you want to try to establish consensus for a new Wikipedia naming policy then please feel free to do so, but this isn't the place to have a debate about policy. You might want to try at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. On the Muslims/Bosniaks point, I think we should go for whatever is used in official Bosnian government documentation, which, as far as I'm aware, is Bosniak. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What nonsense... Bosnian Croats are not a seperate nation, no more than American Croats. (DefenderOfTruthAndJustice, have a look at WP:TRUTH ;) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't have double standards. In BiH goverment documentation there exist Croats and Serbs not Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs. If you wish to use Bosniak, than you have to call two other nations by it's proper names...
And for British analogy, I already told you. If Northern Irelanders are ok in them being called british (at least unionistic part of them) that is their's thing. Northern Ireland is a smaller part of UK. Herzegovina includes 20% of BiH and population there would object if you called them Bosnians. Trinidad and Tobago is a good example for that. In conclusion I would agree with Direktor. Sapienti sat.--Čeha (razgovor) 07:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, once again, per WP:COMMONNAME, "BiH Serbs" is a non-starter. However, you may have a point that it could be more consistent to simply use Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks. The first two should be linked to Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina on first mention though. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
And Bosniaks (or Bosnian Muslims when they are mentioned in that way) should be linked to [[15]]. That would be it:) --Čeha (razgovor) 09:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

When one says Croats it is assumed that one is talking about the people of Croatia, also when one says Serbs one assumes that one is talking about the people of Serbia. This is the case because in those two countries the Croats and Serbs respectivelly are the majority in terms of ethnic groups. Since the Bosniaks are only a majority in the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina it is to be assumed that when one says Bosniaks one speaks of the Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina. If one were to talk about Bosniaks in Serbia they would be refered to as "Serbian Bosniaks". It is important to put the prefix Bosnian- in front of Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs in order to make it perfectly clear that they are citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina and not citizens of Croatia or Serbia. Bosnian Croats have a distinct history and tradition from Croatian Croats same with the Bosnian and Serbian Serbs. It is OK to use the prefix BiH- but this is unnecessary since Bosnia is assumed to stand for the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina and since Herzegovina is not a true entity or state within Bosnia and Herzegovina but is simply a historical region within that country.It is important to remember that all the citizens of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina are Bosnians first before they can be divided into etnhic/religious subgroupings and therefore the prefix Bosnian- should be used when referring to them. Bosniaks are the exception since they are the majority enthic group only in Bosnia and Herzegovina and therefore there is no need to elaborate on them being in Bosnia, if they are in other countries wone would place the name of that country first and then write Bosniak. Simply using the term "Croats" or "Serbs" and then directing them to the articles about "Bosnian Croats" or "Bosnian Serbs" is not a good idea, I think, since it unnecessarily adds uncertainty into the discussion. It is far simpler simply to use the terms "Bosnian Croats" or "Bosnian Serbs" and link them to the articles about Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs. This would be more accurate and it would also be more consistent. DefenderOfTruthAndJustice (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Realy, no.
  • All 3 nations are equal in BiH. If you used just BiH prefixes for Croats and Serbs and not for Bosniaks (which were previously known as Bosnian Muslims) you are alleging that 3 nations are not equal, that Bosniaks are majority, and the other nations are just minorities.
  • People from Herzegovina (which makes at least 20% of BiH) are not known as Bosnians, and most of them would offend if you (all anybody else) would name them as such.
  • History of Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina is exactly same as history of Croats in Croatia. It only diverges since 1791 till 1878 (parts of Croatia were also under Otoman rule). History of BiH Serbs is also almost indentical (most of the Serbs and ortodox belivers came to BiH after Otoman invasions and when Serbia itself was under Otoman rule). There is some divergence since Serbian independence till 1878.
  • Croats in Croatia are the same nation as Croats in BiH (the same goes for the Serbs), using false names you are basicly renaming them.
  • Again it seems to me that you are trying to explore lexical similarities between BosniaKs (former Bosnian muslims, which is ethnical denomination) and BosniaNs (which is regional denomination), and that are trying to make two other nations into BiH minorities (and in doing so deleting the name of the southern part of the country which do not sound as someone would wish).
  • What goes for one nation of 3 equal must go for 2 others. And vice-versa.
--Čeha (razgovor) 23:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

To show to you that it is not necessary to include Herzegovina I will give you two examples: First people of Asian descent living in California are not referred to as being Asian Californians, they are referred to as being Asian Americans. Also people of Turkish descent living in the German states of Bavaria or Brandenburg are not referred to as Bavarian Turks or Brandenburg Turks, they are properly referred to as German Turks. Herzegovina is a historical region within the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is in fact formally no such thing as a politically separate Bosnian or Herzegovinian province they are simply historical provinces that have kept their names and are used colloquially and not formally. While it is true that Bosnia and Herzegovina is the full name of the country there is no need to use it in every instance. People usually say American jeans or American cars and not The United States of America Jeans or The United States of America cars. Therefore it is sufficient in most cases to say Bosnian Serbs or Bosnian Croats and have it be understood the they live in the entire country of BiH. Saying Bosnian Bosniaks is redundant because the only country in the world in which Bosniaks are an ethnic majority or even a sizable ethnic minority is Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia and Herzegovina is the native land of the Bosniaks, the Bosnian Serbs, and the Bosnian Croats. The Croats and Serbs on the other hand have their own native lands of Croatia and Serbia outside of BiH.The label Bosnian Muslims would only apply if Bosnian Serbs were to be called Bosnian Orthodox and Bosnian Croats were to be called Bosnian Christians otherwise one would be mixing religious believes with nationalities which would be incorrect. The term Bosnian Muslims has been historically used to negate the Bosniaks claims to their own country. It was an attempt to characterize them as a religious group of people with no claims to nationhood. Since the war the word Bosniaks has been used to describe the peoples whose native nation is Bosnia and Herzegovina as it is the native nation of Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs. DefenderOfTruthAndJustice (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I would personally prefer it if people in BiH did use the terms Bosnian Orthodox, Bosnian Christian, and Bosnian Muslim to describe themselves because that would make it clear that one is talking about Bosnian people. By introducing the terms Croat or Serb a large degree of uncertainty has been added because those terms are used to describe the people of Croatia and Serbia and do not make it clear that one is talking about the people native to Bosnia and Herzegovina. That is why I think it is important to always state Bosnian Croat or Bosnian Serb in order to make it clear to the reader that one is talking about people(s) whose native country is Bosnia and Herzegovina regardless of their cultural or religious beliefs. That is why I've said that the primarily term for all people living in or coming from the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina is Bosnians (formally) (Herzegovinians can be used colloquially but not formally) and that any breaking down of citizens into ethnic, cultural, or religious subgroups is secondary. DefenderOfTruthAndJustice (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Like I said, problem with your statment is that is POV. If you call one nation by its name, you can not change the names of other two. Muslims (with large M) was national (and not religious) name. Most of the people from that group (together with some peoples from other groups like Yugoslavs or Others) today calls itself Bosniaks. Name of Bosniaks has nothing to do with religious afilliations of Croats or Serbs.
  • For Herzegovina, again, see Trinidad and Tobago. USA is a one country an one nation, and the same goes for the Germany. In BiH there is one country, but three constutive nations.
  • Herzegovians are not BosniaNs. As I said most of them would take offence if you would call them as such.
  • Your problem is that you are mistaking name of the one nation (BosniaK, former Muslims) with the name of citizen of it (BosniaN/Herzegovian).
  • Further more, Croat is a name of a Croat ethnical group, not a citizen of Croatia. There is no difference between Croats living from any side of the borders. Same nation, same culture, same history (for most of the times). The same goes for the Serbs as well.
  • If you wish to be politicly correct than you must use the same rules for every one of constitutive nations. If you don't call Bosniaks BiH Bosniaks, anybody who reads that article would think that Bosniaks are the only constitutive nation of BiH and that the Croats and Serbs came latter (which is not true, as large parts of todays BiH were integral parts of medieval Croatia, as well as some eastern provinces were from time to time part of medieval Serbia). And if you would change the names of BiH Croats and Serbs it would look like they are minorities in their own country!
--Čeha (razgovor) 09:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Čeha, once again I point you to WP:COMMONNAME. The term Bosnian is commonly used to describe people from Bosnia and from Herzegovina. See the Bosnians article, which states "Bosnians are people who reside in, or come from, Bosnia and Herzegovina". Cordless Larry (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I read that. There exist Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina as name in English language. Thanks for the link, I added Herzegovina dispute in there. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Also it is very important to underline the fact that not all BosniaNs are BosniaKs (there are one of 3 constitute nations), and that not all BosniaKs are BosniaNs (some came from Herzegovina as well)... --Čeha (razgovor) 13:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

A new infobox needs to be created, RS is not a country. PRODUCER (TALK) 01:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

RS is one of the two entities of BiH, and I dont understand your problem. Nowhere it says that RS it's a country. Furthermore I think everyone finds this infobox very resourceful, irregardless. Onyxig (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Producer, take a look at this, Template:Belgrade Indeed, non-state entities have infoboxes. Hey, could you help me here, Template:Chicagoland_Riots ? (LAz17 (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)).
We could use such an infobox for sarajevo and banja luka. Yeah? :) (LAz17 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)).
I was referring to something along the lines of this Template:Infobox BiH PRODUCER (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
AH, panimayu moj dragi rebyonak, panimayu... no, smotrit odnu strancu, Ontario (LAz17 (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)).

Holiday... it would be so fine...

I saw this removed from the opening paragraphs and I wasn't sure if it was elsewhere in the article so I'm posting it here: " Its most important holiday is Republic Day (January 9), commemorating the establishment of Republika Srpska on January 9, 1992. This day coincides, according to the Julian calendar, with the Feast of Saint Stephen, whom the Orthodox Serbs regard as the patron saint of Republika Srpska." ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The article now has a holidays section so this is in hand. Hopefully this should also put a stop to the edit was over the lead. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
As you correctly noticed, the removed text is not contrary to WP:LEAD. It was, nevertheless, removed with that pretext by user:PRODUCER, who was already blocked for edit warring and is subject to a permanent WP:1RR restriction on this article ([16]). Regrettably this may indicate that that user is not interested in constructively contributing to Wikipedia... VVVladimir (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. I don't think that this belongs in the lead, especially since it now has its own section. No other country or region articles seem to have national holidays mentioned in the lead (although it is perhaps appropriate to mention when the entity was established). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Cant say that im surprised that your continuing with your stubborn idiotic statements like in the discussion of the history of RS. Its amusing really. I already proved you wrong before, but there's no need here since Cordless Larry already did that. PRODUCER (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
As for that discussion, I still don't think that the sources you used are reliable, because CIA reports have proven to be unreliable and shaped by the current needs of the USA establishment (take the example of the "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq). However, these reports exist, and whoever finds them suitable for pushing his POV is free to use them. So it is pointless to continue that discussion.
As for the mentioning of national holidays in the lead of countries or regions, Cordless Larry is not quite right: see Switzerland and Belarus (the latter being an FA). Per WP:LEAD this bit of information should not be mentioned in the lead if it is not mentioned in the main text. Now that it is mentioned in the main text, there is no reason not to be mentioned in the lead. It is funny that producer insists on removing this bit from the lead referring to WP:LEAD, while the text of the 2nd paragraph blatantly contradicts WP:LEAD without his intervention. VVVladimir (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, but it is still clearly a minority of articles (indeed of featured country articles - though we should remember that Republika Srpska isn't a state) that feature national days in the lead, but I guess I don't really have a strong view either way as to what is best. At least it's in the main body of the article now. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
They all share the same common denominator: political entities with their own holidays. And this article is obviously not a precedent regarding this issue. The text of the paragraph runs, I think, quite smoothly, and also holidays are an important part of life of people of Republika Srpska :) VVVladimir (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Map..

..that locates Sarajevo in Republica Srpska has been removed. Writegeist (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the brain fart. The map clearly shows it's Istočno Sarajevo. Thank you Onyxig for reverting. Writegeist (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The map was BH municipality location.svg ... why was that changed??? (LAz17 (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)).

vs

An IP made the change, without edit summary, on 1 April [17]. Would you like to revert to BH_municipality_location.svg? Writegeist (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Right now I don't know. What do others think? What are advantages/disadvantages of one map over the other? (LAz17 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)).
Republika_Srpska_simple provides more information. And BH_municipality_location looks kinda fluffy, and not so encyclopedic, IMO. Writegeist (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It is not encyclopedic? WTF? Do you notice that it shows all the municipalities??? That is its main advantage. (LAz17 (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)).
Still Republika_Srpska_simple is more informative. Showing boundary lines between municipalities without naming a single one of them except Banja Luka and Brčko (which is shared by the two entities) is not so useful. VVVladimir (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I would also propose adding Gradiška and Mrkonjić Grad, north and south from Banja Luka respectively. VVVladimir (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Add the town names to the map that shows the municipalities? (LAz17 (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)).
Good idea. It may be also good that the name "Banja Luka" is written with a bigger font and/or underscored, as it is in the above maps. VVVladimir (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead

This text, until now the 2nd paragraph of the lead, is a ridicule of an encyclopedia:
During the 1992–1995 Bosnian War, Republika Srpska was called the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A self-proclaimed state within the internationally recognized territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it was led by former president Radovan Karadžić. Pale was then the de facto capital.
The first sentence is obviously wrong, because that name was changed already in 1992. The term "self-proclaimed" is not encyclopedic – it must be stated when and by whom it was proclaimed. As for a potential calling dr. Radovan Karadžić a war criminal, a person must not be called "war criminal", be it in the phrase "indicted war criminal", until the person is validly sentenced for that crime (presumption of innocence). The cited source avoids calling him directly a war criminal, but even if it did call him that, journalists are not relevant for that judgement. The last sentence may seem to be correct, but the concept of capital is not quite applicable for the war-time Republika Srpska. VVVladimir (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Radovan Karadzic in the history section? A former president of this article is notable as is being indicted of war crimes. Why is the history section longer on this article than the actual "history of rs" article? PRODUCER (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
In fact no person is mentioned in that section, in order to make the section as short as possible, and to summarize the main events. However, some notable persons may be added to it, there is no problem in that. The history section is not longer than the "actual history of rs article", it is easy to check. Though that article needs some serious reconsideration. 80.242.126.2 (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The source makes it perfectly clear that Karadzic is an indicted war criminal: "...Mr Karadzic and other indicted war criminals." It's simply the phrase by which people who are indicted for war crimes are described in English-speaking western countries. Writegeist (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Saying that a person is a war criminal, regardless of the adjective one puts before that phrase, is contrary to the presumption of innocence if that person is not validly sentenced. An encyclopedia should not repeat mistakes of some journalists, who obviously have prejudices. And the latter word can be taken here in its literal meaning derived from its Latin origin: prae 'in advance' + judicium 'judgement'. That is to say 'judgement in advance'. VVVladimir (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you not ashamed for adding text from such a source [18]? Do you really not care a bit for those people who come back to those regions where it is hard to find a job for anyone? Well, I can only congratulate to you... You seem to be lost in time, in 1992, or 1993 —- a very, very bad time to be lost in... VVVladimir (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
And that sentence of Ivo Sanader you added ([19]), that is something really devastating for Republika Srpska — that is the end of Republika Srpska. VVVladimir (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
What the hell? Everything I added is relevant to republika srpska, yet if it disagrees with rs or provides another side of an argument, serbian editors deem it somehow inappropriate, your pathetic. PRODUCER (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, refrain from your incivility. The first sentence of the last paragraph of this edit is incorrectly written, because the cited source states that "the STP has learnt that non-Serbian returning refugees to the Republika Srpska are heavily discriminated..." So, what is said in that sentence was a conclusion of that NGO called STP, not some generally accepted fact, as it was represented in the sentence. And really, what kind of source is that?

  • It mentions "war atrocities [in B-H] orchestrated by the Serbian government", although no court ever sentenced the Serbian government for any crime.
  • It says that "2.2 million Bosniaks were driven out of the country", although that number is in fact the sum of the refugees and the internally displaced persons of all the three peoples in B-H ([20]).
  • It says that those who returned to Republika Srpska are "often unable to find employment", giving it as a proof of discrimination, while it is a well-known fact that the unemployment is high in the whole B-H, including Republika Srpska, and that is the fact for all the citizens, regardless the nationality and the refugee status.
  • It says that children of those who returned have to attend "Serbian" schools, putting the word Serbian into the quotes, which is a sign of contempt, and which is shamefully repeated in that edit by that user (is that how an encyclopedic article should be written?). The curriculums of the subjects taught in Republika Srpska's schools are created by expert teams of the Ministry of Education of Republika Srpska, a legal body of the legal government of the legal entity of Republika Srpska. Adding such a contemptuous text is outrageous. If those children have to listen their lessons in Serbian, at the same time children of the Serbs who returned to the Federation have to listen their lessons in what is called Bosnian language there. And talking about languages in this context is actually rather absurd, because there is no difference worth mentioning between these languages.
  • The issue of the health insurance is (or probably by now was) a problem of only a small number of those who returned to Republika Srpska, and the cause of that is of purely administrative nature on the level of the whole B-H. In fact, people have more problems with the health insurance in the Federation ([21]).
  • Throughout the whole text, the name of Republika Srpska is contemptuously put between the quotes – "Republika Srpska".

The political demands listed at the conclusion of that text are its actual purpose. All in all, such a source is completely unacceptable for an encyclopedic article. The Government of Republika Srpska and other institutions do help in solving problems of those who return to their homes in Republika Srpska (for example [22] and [23]), though probably even more should be done in that respect. VVVladimir (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You’re really one to talk, what with taking my edits personally and going as far as posting to whine about them and question my morality. The STP is one of the biggest human rights organizations in Europe; it has advisory status at the United Nations and participatory status with the Council of Europe. It is a reliable source.
  • Plenty of Serb officials were indicted or convicted of war crimes including top officials like Karadzic, Mladic and Milosevic. [24] [25][26]
  • "2.2 million Bosniaks" is obviously a mistake as it says immediately right after that "8,373 Bosnian men and boys were killed by the Serbian army in the UN protect zone of Srebrenica."
  • You can still nonetheless be discriminated against while looking for employment.
  • This is a scare quote, a bit quick to jump to contempt aren't we?
  • The majority of your claims are original research, we are discussing RS not FBiH.
You really think a source leading to a dodik interview is going to convince me? [27] As for the "progress" in Bjelina, after how many years? [28] PRODUCER (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No one is taking your posts personally, don't get the wrong impression. The question is about the validity of the posts. And there is no "whining" there, but an analysis of the quality of the posts and the used sources. The reliability of a source is judged by the the truthfulness of the text, especially when false information in it can be seen immediately.

  • No court ever adjudged that the Serbian government is guilty of orchestration of war atrocities or war crimes, so that claim is obviously wrong.
  • The text says 2.2 million Bosniaks, and an attempt to justify that falsehood as a "mistake" just won't do, especially considering the political demands at the conclusion.
  • The text gave no proof that being "often unable to find employment" is a consequence of discrimination, and not the general situation in B-H.
  • It would be nice if it were just "scare quotes", but the context of that whole passage shows a clear disrespect for the schools of Republika Srpska. This may be someone's personal opinion about the schools, but putting it in an encyclopedic article is unacceptable.
  • The problems of some with health insurance came from the administration on the level of B-H, and this has nothing to do with discrimination. This is not my discovery ([29]), and there is also no other OR in what I wrote.
  • The progress is made, and this is the current state of things, which is the most relevant.

That text is strongly biased and definitely unacceptable. The second paragraph is based on reports written in 2001 and 2002, but the sentences in the post are written in such a way to give the impression of the present state of affairs, which is incorrect. I apologize if I just can't resist an inkling of a certain bias of who posted it (or is it just me "whining" again). Anyway, only the part about the mosques could be accepted if it was stated that the mosques have been reconstructed since then without such problems. VVVladimir (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Producer and Vladimir, you are going to have to find a way to work together. Vladimir, you cannot simply removed sourced text, esp. not since you don't seem to address the reliability of the sources, which I think you should in such a case. Producer, I assume that you are responsible for the majority of the text recently removed by Vladimir, you are going to have to do a much more careful assessment of these sources--you cannot simply state what they say as fact without addressing, in the text, WHO makes those statements. One source is a "Written statement submitted by the Society for Threatened Peoples" to the UN Commission of Human Rights--that's not simply a "fact," it's a statement, and you should consider the UN's response. At the very least, the text ought to give an idea of who makes these claims. Another source, the International Crisis Group, has a certain authority (a lot of it, probably) on these matters, but that also needs to be qualified in the text.

It's in the assessment and treatment of these sources that you two (and others) need to find a middle ground of sorts. Removal of sourced text (even if not perfectly sourced text) is not acceptable, nor is the presentation of statements as fact. I know one of you has already been warned about edit-warring (I haven't checked for both of you), and no one really don't want to go there. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the reliability of of the text by the Society for Threatened Peoples as a source for an encyclopedic article, I gave above arguments against it, I'm not sure have you read that. I do not question the reliability of the International Crisis Group and the US Helsinki Commission, but the material from their reports is incorrectly presented in the post as applying to the present time, while they were written in 2001 and 2002. And much has changed since then. That is the reason why I removed them. I know that the user provided references, but I suppose not anything can be added to wikipedia's articles only because a reference is attached to it. VVVladimir (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I did look at the previous discussion, and I don't disagree with some of the general comments you made, but STP's statements shouldn't simply be discarded because they're POV or something like that--it's hard to find non-POV references in a matter like this. And I agree that not everything that is "printed" should be added to Wikipedia. What I am saying is that I believe their opinion is valid as an opinion, esp. since it's heard by the UN--you could say that I go "against" you in that respect. But I absolutely agree, and maybe I didn't make that clear enough, that their "Aide-Mémoire" cannot simply be taken as gospel truth, and the text in the article should reflect that this is a statement by an important and interested party, and in that respect I'm "with" you.

I have made some edits to the text, and I think that more could be done. Have a look and see if you think it better represents the sources. If you can document, for instance, that the health care situation has improved, that congregations of new mosques and old churches organize potlucks together, etc., that would be great--but it has to be done through additional information provided by reliable sources. And then, at some point, we will have a better opportunity to weigh chunks of information--but removing them, as you did, or representing them outside of a context, as Producer did, is not how this should be handled.

In the interest of the encyclopedia, not to mention the spirit of brotherly and sisterly love, it would be well if both of you can tone down the rhetoric a little bit. We all have to live together anyway, and we might as well try and start that here. Thanks for your comments and for engaging in the conversation, Drmies (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are a certain improvement, and as you proposed, facts from other sources could be added to balance this one-sided and biased text. UN certainly knows better than to take STP's "Aide-Mémoires" for granted, but to an average person who might plan to return to Republika Srpska this text simply shouts, "Don't go there!" if any of them will read that. Though they probably wouldn't take that very seriously :) Cheers, VVVladimir (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Producer is a confirmed biased person. He had a label in his profile that openly said that he is against Rebublika Srpska's right to exist. If that is not biased, I do not know what is. (LAz17 (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)).

I have mentioned this before, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republika_Srpska/Archive_5#Criticism_of_the_Republika_Srpska_-_PROPAGANDA and the template has indeed been deleted since, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Republika_Srpska , but we can bring it back/undelete - this is possible, just to prove that Producer is biased and thus is not reliable to edit here. (LAz17 (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)).

I was wrong. It's still there. He ain't fooling anyone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/User_Republika_Srpska (LAz17 (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)).

Third opinion

anderssl (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (name here)
....
Viewpoint by (name here)
....
Third opinion by anderssl
....

A third opinion has been requested for some dispute concerning this article, but it's not entirely clear which dispute it concerns. Remember that third opinions should only be requested for disputes that only involve two editors. --Anderssl (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republika_Srpska/Archive_5&oldid=1090577075"