Talk:West Herzegovina Canton/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Herzeg Bosnia.gif

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

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

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

Infobox symbols

The symbols were found unconstitutional stop pushing your pov. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by PRODUCER (talk • contribs)

bla bla bla...

Until there appear to be symbols accepted on both sides. .. these ones will stay. Wikipedia does not obey not any constituition!! should stop pushing your POV!! --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ive already provided a source showing that symbols are no longer in use, meanwhile you failed to present an argument and continue to edit war. PRODUCER (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

These symbols arew still in use

• central square in Široki Brijeg:here you can clearly see the flag on right

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Glavni-most-slavlje09052.JPG

• county headquerters in Široki brijeg-here you can clearly see the coat of arms:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%C5%BDupanija-zh06402.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%C5%BDupanija_-zh06403.JPG

• municipality building i Široki Brijeg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Opcina07584.JPG --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding to a request on Wikipedia:Third opinion. In my opinion:

• Aradic-es: please review WP:CIVIL.
• PRODUCER is correct. The argument that the symbols should stay until some others "are accepted by both sides", is bogus. Until any symbols are accepted, NO symbols should appear.
• The pictures are irrelevant without knowing dates, and even if the pictures are current, the flags can still be traditional without being official symbols.
• While it is true that Wikipedia obeys no constitution, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to publish official and verifiable facts. If the facts are that the symbols are no longer officially recognized, then they should not be used as representational symbols in this article.

Those are my opinions. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK here is my response:

• I don't think that I insulted anybody here (including PRODUCER, BTW).If I did ,show me,please.
• the point is:the federal government, court or smth like did not propose some other symbols-they just "banned" these ones. There are no any alternative symbols that might appear acceptable to both sides.neither imposed ones.
• the pictures ARE current. You can see the date when they are taken:it is enabled by metadata given to the files during shhoting by digital camera.And yes, the flag and coat of arms are official-you can see them on (CURRENT ) photos of the official plates in the county building.
• Website of west Herzegovina county government-you can see clearly coat of arms it.even flag if you search more. The sam symbols you can see at the website of Herzeg-bosnian county (aka Canton 10)

About PRODUCER and his modus operandi-you should take look:he does not correct anything. He simply reverts what he does not like. vene if it is sourced.And in his edit summarries accsuing everybody for "nationalism". I think that he is the one who should review WP:CIVIL.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say that "bla bla bla" is an uncivil response, as well as your accusations of vandalism.

If no alternative symbols were proposed, and these symbols were banned by the government, then there's no compelling reason why this Wikipedia article should use them either. If none are acceptable to all sides, then none are acceptable in this article.

Regarding your allegations about PRODUCER: please review Wikipedia:Assume good faith. From my point of view, both of you appear to be actively editing in good faith on this project. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• "bla bla bla" is my response on repeating the same "arguments" as mentioned in edit summaries. "vandalism" in this case does not include removing the disputed symbols and names but also all other edits made by me. If you see the history of this article, as well as Canton 10 and Bosniak language, you can see that PRODUCER was simply reverting all my edits-without checking-whether they were sourced or not!--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I lack the patience to reiterate all the things you've done but I will point out a few. You stubbornly scream "vandalism!" at absolutely all of my edits or anyone with a differing view, I'm unsure you know the meaning of the word WP:VAN. You never source anything, even when it comes to serious articles with accusations such as this [2] [3] and bring up nonsense like this [4], meant to spread misinformation and in no way help improve the article WP:NOTAFORUM.

I provided a source which states that they are no longer officially in use. Unless you can find one overturning the decision then your simply showing unofficial use of the symbols. PRODUCER (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I referr to your "edits" as "vandalism" because i do not sea other way to describe them .You don't edit. You simply erase what you don't like or disagree
• I made this comment , in order to show (and there plenty other sources) that Bosniaks sometimes identify themselves as "Turks" .you simply erased it calling it "nationalistic nonsense" (very civil,btw)-and I just quoted what Bosniak leaders said. Obvoiusly you don't like it to be known in public.but that is not

• Abput Grabovica and Doljani... I did not find (lot) reliable sources at the first time-Yes,that is true. but I did not erase the source that you inserted.
• Finally the most important thing :about these two counties. i have provided the sources that those symbols are in official use . If you pretend that you don't see that is your problem.And again ... in case of article about Canton 10: you simply (again) reverted all. Including this map. I do not know any other word to describe it but "v_ _ _ _ _ _ _"

  

  turist map of Herzeg-Bosnian county

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What would you call this edit here? [5]

You wrote "Bosniaks or Turks", to suggest that Bosniaks were Turks, you had no intent on improving the article and instead added nonsense expected from an IP.

You have not provided sources, you've provided pictures. I'm asking for an actual source such as this one [6]. Again I provided a source which states that they are no longer officially in use. Unless you can find one overturning the decision then your simply showing unofficial use of the symbols. PRODUCER (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Are these symbols official?

• de jure: partially -not recognized at the federal level. but at the local level-absolutely still official. as you can see on the official website And what makes you believe that usage by local government is not official??
• de facto :absolutely YES

I am sorry but I can not provide you sources that only you will judge about their validity. "kadija te tuži , kadija ti sudi" is not valid here! --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You have not been asked to provide sources so one editor can review them. You are being asked to provide sources because Wikipedia policy requires you to do so. The web site you referenced is interesting but I don't see anywhere where it says that coat of arms is still an official symbol, or if it's just a legacy symbol used because the site happens to need an icon.

Until you can provide any source supporting your position, the images have no place in this article.

A third opinion was requested. I provided one. The purpose of a third opinion request is to cast a tiebreaking vote so that editors can quit fighting and go on improving the article. Your unwillingness to accept the opinions of two other editors (one of whom is uninvolved with this article), and your unwillingness to provide sources, has not been constructive.

If you disagree with the small consensus achieved here so far, I suggest you solicit responses from other editors via WP:RFC or pursue a more formal means of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, here it is [7] in Croatian:

Županija ima svoju zastavu i grb. Grb Županije je povijesni hrvatski grb u obliku stiliziranog štita, podijeljen vodoravno i okomito u 25 crveno bijelih polja-kvadrata, tako da je prvo polje u gornjem lijevom kutu crvene boje. Iznad stiliziranog štita nalazi se troplet vodoravno položen na štit iznad tri središnja polja. Grb je obrubljen zlatnom crtom. Zastava Županije sastoji se od tri boje: crvene, bijele i plave, s grbom u sredini. Boje su položene vodoravno.

English translation:

County has its flag and coat of arms. the coat of arms of the county is historical Croatian coat of arms in the shape of shield divide horizontally and vertically into 25 read andwhite fields-squares, so that the first field in the top left corner is red color.... The flag of the county is made of three colors :red white and blue,withe the coat of arms in the middle. Colors are arranges horizontally.

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a copy of the 1996 version of the constitution [8], the symbols were banned in 1997/1998 [9]. PRODUCER (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on this, it still seems clear to me that the symbols don't belong in this article. Àntó, can you find a more recent source that countermands the 1998 constitution? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This text is copied from th CURRENT version of the website. So, it means that constituition as such is still valid for the local governement.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't engage in synthesis here. Just because a web site has an historical document doesn't mean we can synthesize the conclusion that the document is still in force, unless the local government itself explicitly says so. It seems more likely (my own synthesized conclusion, equally as invalid as yours) that the web site hasn't been updated in a while. Again I ask, can you find a source more recent than the 1998 constitution that establishes these symbols as official? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.vladazzh.com/

if you the frontpage you will see the section news( "Novosti").So ,the website IS "updated" at least once-.What is changed in reality it was changed in the website. What is not changed -it was nto changed in site neither. The constituition does not change from time to time. it is current not "historical" document.If the presence of document ,which mentions symbols as official, does exist on the (updated!!) official website does not make it official... then I don't know what would make it (at least semi)official . What criteria???? --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You are saying there are two current constitutions? The one you prefer and the more recent one that bans the symbols? Sorry, I am failing to understand the logic.

The plain and simple fact is that these symbols were banned by the most recent version of the constitution.

However, that doesn't mean they should be banned from this article. I think they can be described in the body text of the article as former symbols, but as I have repeatedly asserted, they no longer belong in the infobox. I think it's encyclopedic for the article to discuss the history of the symbols and the different versions of the constitution. That way they can be retained in the article, just not in the infobox. Is that acceptable? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as they are not in the infobox, I'm ok with this. PRODUCER (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

@Amatulić'There is only ONE constitution of this county and according to it-these symbols are official! Where is that "most recent version of the constitution" in which they were "banned". I have not seen it! Show me ,please.Otherwise your telling about "former symbols" and "historical documents" makes no senseAñtó| Àntó (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

While I cannot read the language, it seems that PRODUCER provided a link to it at the top of the section where this argument started, to which you responded "bla bla bla..." ~Amatulić (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

MY "bla bla bla" was response to PRODUCER's multiple reverting and edit summaries copied as "explanations" on this talk page.And that was only 1 source-not the crucial one!--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please click on this link and tell me exactly what is this document? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a verdict of the constituitional court (as PRODUCER said) in which is mentioned that flag, coat of arms are innapropriate for this county-because they represnt only one ethnic group (Croats). it also mentions that name "hercebosanska županija" IS NOT AAPROPRIATE because the territory of this county does not cover any territory of "Herzegovina".<This statement is hardly provable because "herzegovina" as the term is has no strict and precise boarders. And people from Livno and TOmislavgrad do definitely consider themselves as "Herzegovinians". Anyway-nothing new what I have not told so far--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Based on that, it seems the logical compromise is to keep the symbol in the article but not in the infobox. I have experimentally done that to the article so you can see how it looks. No information is lost, just repositioned. Is that acceptable? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I just translated you the text..it was as PRODUCER said-I did not deny. But they are still partially official. Right? --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

To me, "partially official" sounds paradoxical, similar to "a little bit pregnant" or "gourmet junk food".

I'm more concerned about Wikipedia policy here, particularly WP:SYN, which prohibits us from synthesizing a conclusion that the sources don't explicitly say.

The article already says (correctly) that local governments continue to use the symbols. That fact may imply some level of official-ness, but a Wikipedia article shouldn't synthesize such a conclusion from available sources. Instead, it is most important for an encyclopedia to present all relevant facts, and let the readers decide what the facts mean. The facts in this case are (1) the court has determined that the symbols are not official, and (2) the local government still displays the symbols.

I think the article would be interesting if these two facts could be expanded upon, with both the original constitution and the later verdict referenced. Right now the article is rather sparse, and it could benefit from additional encyclopedic text. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Assuming that the court that ruled it unconstitutional is the highest official authority on the matter, it seems to be a good compromise to add the symbols in their own section since they are still used the de facto symbols.[10] Hopefully this has solved the issue, so I can also unprotect Canton 10. Spellcast (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand: we can say as well things like this... what if there was new decision of the court. What if this one was not current and the symbols are valid. Federal court did not impose other symbols for the county- in that case they should be in the infobox.
• WP:SYN ,indeed , does not alow us for making our own conclusions. but the constituition says EXPLICITLY-(urbi et orbi) and as such remains aso far "official"
• There are plenty of examples where symbols are used although they are not official at all, neither represent any official instituition (Basque Country (greater region), Kurdistan, Occitania... )

Why this would be an exeption??? Because Bosniak nationalists dislike it??? --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Àntó, on this talk page we are concerned with improving this article. If faults exist in other articles, they should be corrected also.

However, the symbols in those other articles may be valid. A good reason for an exception is the fact that a court has rendered a decision on the specific symbols being used in this article, and not those other symbols.

You ask, what if there was a new decision by the court? Then that decision should be reflected in this article, and properly sourced.

You ask, what if this decision was not current and the symbols are valid? How about: what if this decision was not current and it turns out some other symbols are now valid? In either case, you must reference a source that supersedes the other sources we know of. Wikipedia can only report what sources say. Articles shouldn't contain conjecture.

If the constitution says the symbols are official, and a court rejects that part of the constitution, then they are no longer official. Yes, they are still used. Displaying the symbols in the infobox as if they are official symbols, creates an implication in the context of WP:SYN that should be avoided. It is far better to explain the situation with the symbols in the text of the article, and include the symbols in the text for illustration. I think that is a reasonable compromise. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I might agree with you at some points I must repeat certain things:

• there are no symbols suggested /imposed from the federal level (or Constituition court).Therefore these ones are the only existing ones.
• no rule of wikipedia says:"use only 100% official symbols" or "unofficial symbols are not allowed"
• NO WP rules says describes what kind of symbols are allowed in the infobox

because of this I see no reason for removing them from infobox. and to end this war started by PRODUCER in May 19 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Herzegovina_Canton&diff=291051951&oldid=288317377

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a judgement imposed regarding those symbols at a federal level court. The fact that there are no alternative symbols is irrelevant. There is no rule on Wikipedia regarding symbols either way, so we have to go by court decisions and editor consensus.

Based on those who have participated in this discussion (4 that I can see), WP:CONSENSUS is leaning toward removing the symbols from the infobox. I suggest you accept the compromise suggested to keep the symbols in the article. If a national court has deemed the symbols illegal, then that decision should be respected. The symbols should still be kept in the body of the article to describe their unique situation within this country. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia as encyclopedia should record de facto things. In this case they quite clear. I can provide you an image of official tax stamps. And not just de facto. Court decisions should stay ,yes. but they are only one criteria-not the absolute one.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we expand the story about the symbols of the county-since there are no alternative symbols!.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Census

The census refers to them as Bosniaks [11] PRODUCER (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not the official source for census. This is:

http://www.fzs.ba/Dem/Popis/NacStanB.htm

and it says "Muslimani" (Muslims (by nationality)). "Bosniak" was not recognized nation in Yugolslavia.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

verdict

One big mistake:

this source anyway talks only about herzeg-Bosnian county (a.k.a Canton 10) not about this one!--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not mention West herzegovina county . You can check that searching word "zapadnohercegovacka zupanija " or "zapadnohercegovacki kanton" . therefore it doe not apply here!--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Its the same flag and coa. LoL PRODUCER (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

it does not mention this county and it is nonsense to cite that verdict here.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

AGAIN,producer, stop removing names and symbols with no reason.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Reversions, warning

OK chaps, time to stop reverting-without-talking. A and P, you need to justify all your reverts, on the talk page, before making them. Blank edits summaries and those accusing others of vandlaism will be looked on with disfavour. WP:ARBMAC looms William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

it seems to me that you will receive no response from PRODUCER since he never writes edit summaries and especially not explanations onthe talk pages.

As I have explained on the previous paragraph the verdict mention above [12] does not referr to this canton /county but Canton 10--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We've already discussed this at Talk:West_Herzegovina_Canton#Infobox_symbols for over 20 days, the symbols are exactly the same LoL, this is Aradic's last feeble attempt at keeping the symbols in the infobox. PRODUCER (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The verdict does not talk anything about this county-therefore-it is meaningless. I have explained already that this verdict says no word about this county-therefore it is meaningless. So, stop pushing you POV,PRODUCER.

The symbols are the same yes. But it makes no sense because it is other OTHER TERRITORY. No symbols are universally illegal.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your telling me the same exact symbols are found unconstitutional for one canton and not for the other? I've already explained myself, your argument is void of any common sense. PRODUCER (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the verdict does not mention this county. It is relevant for this article as for Burkina Faso.And , please ,be civil.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Again the same meaningless removing the symbols with no explanations???--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

CoA & Flag of the West Herzegovina Canton

The official website uses the CoA of the CR Herzeg-Bosnia. Does anyone know what's the flag of the West Herzegovina Canton? (it seems logical it would be the flag of CR Herzeg-Bosnia, but not necessarily) Also, the official website uses the term "Županija" for the native name. You'll need explicit proof that that is so only in the Croatian language, and that the Bosnian language uses another term. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian and Serbian use "Kanton" rather than "Županija". "Zapadno-hercegovački kanton" is used here [13] (bit of a silly demand). Regardless of what image the official website has, have you gone over the documents linked above? I've failed to find a document showing that the symbols of WH are unconstitutional so far, but they're exactly the same as Canton 10's symbols that were declared unconstitutional ffs. I have however found that the symbols for Posavina Canton were also declared unconstitutional. [14] PRODUCER (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that, it refers to the previous symbols which were also the symbols of HB. PRODUCER (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

May be silly, but I don't know that much about the silly politics of modern BiH :P. This seems to be quite the problem. The Canton uses HB symbols, but you believe BiH declared them unconstitutional?

Here's how I see it. Provide an official document (or published reference to one) declaring either 1) that the symbols of WH are unconstitutional specifically, or 2) that this flag and CoA are generally unconstitutional in the BiH. (By that I don't mean that the symbols of the Posavina Canton are banned, but the Flag and CoA of HB in general.) Otherwise, I'll have to go with what the Canton uses, unless its directly contradicted by the government. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just answer:

• 1)No- there is no any verdict related to WHC!
• 2)also NO-nothing written in FBiH constituition

Any particular proofs that deny me??Añtó| Àntó (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Plus:some very simple question:Is there any WP.rules that says that for th certain countries/provinces,cities,regions... must be used only symbols that were found constituitional?? IF there is-I withdraw from this- If not-this discussion makes no sense.

Flag

Can the flag and the coat of arms be included in the infobox of the article, ie, are these considered official? --Governor Sheng (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The sentence about the flag was removed from the cantonal constitution, and the flag itself was re-adopted by the cantonal assembly. So, the flag of Herzeg-Bosnia *is* the current flag. [15] Governor Sheng (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

First, are you seriously implying that private website and private societies led by people of Željko Heimer like could be somehow considered WP:RS; and are you seriously think that somehow low-level governmental institution(s) can supersede second highest court in the country, and the highest at the entity level in a country like B-H, which is Constitutional Court of the Federation of B-H? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you live in Bosnia and Herzegovina? If not, that's understandable, but if yes, this is just unexplainable ignorance on your side. See at their official website. They had an ammandment *after* the decision of the Constitutional Court. Claiming that this flag not being the flag of the Canton constitutes original research on your part. Be kind enough to revert yourself, or else, present the sources for your claims. Governor Sheng (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Constitutional court in any country is the highest court in the land - it exists to interpret and guard the Federal Constitution and set law of the land - it rules and decides what is constitutional in all constitutions on federal level, starting with the federal laws to lower cantonal level; its rulings can't be superseded by any decisions made by any governmental office at the federal level, including Federal Assembly, Federal Court, Cantonal Assembly, Cantonal courts, Municipality assemblies and courts - nothing! supersedes Constitutional court of the Federation B-H, except the Constitutional court of B-H itself, which never happened. Please, take your own advice from your recent removal of Category:Serb communities in Croatia, in Karanac article, with appeal to legality - remember ("Legally, there are no Serb communities in Croatia"). ౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

That's all good an' all, but it's still original research. Do you have sources supporting your claim that the flag in question *is not* the flag of the Canton? Otherwise, I could just use their cantonal laws that came in force *after* the decision of the constitutional court, and the problem would be solved. That's why I'm askig you, do you have any sources supporting your claims that discuss the current situation, ie post-2000? Governor Sheng (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Santasa99:, although I'm trying to discuss things normally with you and although I tried to reject the notion that you're POV-pushing and being arrogant for no reason, this notion imposes itself on me. This is really the last time I'm gonna try to talk in a good faith with you, especially after those biased and nonsensical requests for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jusuf Barčić. You have a habit of characterizing sources as "unreliable" and "biased" out of poor whim. This sort of editing is really problematic and unconstructive. You're discouraging other editors from improving articles with constant baseless tagging and calling for some "consensus" on whether a source is "reliable", only because you're the only person in the world to think so. First, before tagging, it is your duty to explain to yourself how in the world some reference is unreliable, which you failed to do on EVERY occasion.

Now, regarding Željko Heimer - https://zbl.lzmk.hr/?p=263. This is an encyclopedia article on him. He is a noted scholar and vexillologist, and his blog is used on many, many Wikipedia articles (type his name in the search). He also has an article on Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia. Now, as I asked you before, I ask you kindly again, to revert your edit.

You failed to make a sensible explanation and you refuse to participate in further discussion. Instead, you choose to edit war with me. Just quit being so disruptive. You're taking everyone's time for no reason. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Your last two edits are persistent prolonged edit-warring without attempt to discuss it, and with only edit-summary justifications that have not based in any of guidelines and policies. I am not going to discuss if personal website of anonymous is RS multiple times, because that website won't magically become RS if we discuss it over and over again; or about your misinterpretation of WP:Concesus vis-a-vis of how long a time is OK to pass to consider TP discussion concluded in consensus. You have quite a history of tendentious editing as I already pointed.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I tried to reason with you. I'm gonna report this discussion to Administrators' noticeboard and notify you when I do it. I hope that will resolve the issue. Governor Sheng (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

You are really walking razor's edge here - go back and look what have you told me in your communication above. You are trying to capitalize on the fact that my AfD was not accepted this time around, in tone that is very much due for Incident board, and sort of espoused a conclusion that you are not going to discuss it with me anymore, because there is nothing to discuss with someone whose AfD was closed the way it was closed. The only thing that is out of discussion is personal web page of anonymous, whom you claim to be an expert, not only because it was already discussed, but because self-published anonymous is not RS. Another thing that would probably be out of discussion in any other similar discussion is your claim that local assembly can enact a "positive" law that can supersede a ruling by Constitutional court of the country - the highest court and highest instance for interpreting law in any country. And what are you doing in the meantime - you are removing, in what is mass removal without any discussion, and even decent edit-summary, flag of Bosnia from every majority Croat settlement in Bosnia, which is just to mention one problematic string of edits.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

These aren't the issus relevant for this discussion. The thing you're talking about are supposedly referring to my edits in general. Per WP:SELF-PUBLISHED, Heimer is clearly a reliable source. I asked for a third opinion. Governor Sheng (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

You have 3rd Opinion above, responder @Amatulić, you should check what they had to say on all this. I will reply to Heimer issue in detail later. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Third party is a neutral party. Framing someone into discussion isn't the way for discusssing thing out. Governor Sheng (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, a note for the third party(ies).

First. Željko Heimer is a professional vexilologist. Here is an article about him on the Jewish Biographical Lexicon published by Miroslav Krleža Institute of Lexicography and edited by Ivo Goldstein, a notable member of the Croatian-Jewish academic community. This is the list of Heimer's scientific work listed by the CROSBI (The Croatian Scientific Bibliography), which is published by the Croatian Ministry of Science and Technology (this serves as a register of all scientific papers published in Croatai). Here are results of published works by Heimer on Google Scholar. This clearly demonstrates that Heimer is an established scholar in his field of work.

Second. According to WP:RSSELF, " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

Third. It is clear that, as said, Heimer is, in the case of his website, a self-published expert.

Fourth. The positive laws enacted in 2000 by West Herzegovina Canton, after the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, are very reliable sources as to which flag of the canton is official or whether the canton has a flag.

Fifth. Since User Satnasa 99 bases his edits on his own conclusions and interpretations that the decision of the Constitutional Court annuls any future decisions (they still do not provide any source for the such claim), their edits constitute original research. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

You can't be serious, if you are, go to article Constitutional Court and Constitutional Court|Constitutional Court in B-H, I really do not intend to explain to anyone how is Constitutional court highest court in every country which has one, nor what is its purpose. And enough with Heiner already, even his website, whatever his credibility is, says exactly the same thing that I am trying to say here. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

You're obviously missing the point. The decision of the Constitutional Court cannot be applied to future decisions. The decision of the Constitutional Court was relevant only to the cantonal law that was in force prior to 1998. The decision annulled that part of the law. Afterward, the canton made a new law, the law for which the Constitutional Court had no ruling so far. Your claim is that somehow the court's decision from 1998 annuls all future decisions, which is an extraordinary claim. Governor Sheng (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Allow me to be more simple. The Constitutional Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina made a decision in 1998 in which it annulled Arts 8, 9, 10, and 30 of the Consitution of the West Herzegovina Canton, a version of the constitution published in the official gazette No. 1/96. ("Utvrđuje se da čl. 8, 9, 10. i 30. Ustava Zapadnoherce­govačkog kantona ("Narodne novine Županije Zapadnoherce­govačke", broj 1/96), nisu u skladu s Ustavom Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine.).

The Canton then amended its constitution on 29 September 2000 - *after the decision of the Constitutional Court*, which states only that the canton has a flag and that this flag will be defined by a special law, but it *does not define what the flag is*. The new law titled "The law of flag and coat of arms of the West Herzegovina Canton" was put into force in 2003. These are two very different documents, and the decision of the constitutional court doesn't say absolutely anything about the 2003 law nor it could be, as it was made in 1998. This means that what you're claiming is your own, unsupported, original research.

In short, the canton amended the constitution to fit the court's decision and enacted a new law of a different hierarchy (Constitution vs Law), of which the Constitutional Court did not have a ruling so far. What you're saying is that the 2003 law is not valid because some decision of the constitutional court from 1998 was discussing a completely different legal document.

And no, Heimer doesn't make the same point as you. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

How can they "amend" something and then use the same thing that was deemed unconstitutional - it was not ruled unconstitutional because it is a checky, or it's used by Croats, or because it's used by Herceg-Bosna in war. It was ruled unconstitutional because it is representative only of one people, it does not represent anyone else. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of the court's rulling. The 2003 law was *never* discussed by the court. What would be the court's decision todays is only your prediction and original research. Until someone appaels the court because of the 2003 law, and the court makes a new decision based on that appeal, we cannot say anything. Heimer also says that the flag as we have it today was deifned by the 2003 law, and not by the annuled articles of the cantonal Constitution (which were discussed by the court). Governor Sheng (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

That said, the 2003 law is fully in force, whatever you think of it. It was *never* annulled by the court. The parts of the previous cantonal constitution were annulled. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I really don't care if the law is in force at the lower level or not, if they respect their own country's Constitutional court decisions or not. The fact that they use the flag when and where they can do not make it official, it just says that local nationalists don't respect their own institutions, and that the country has problem to enforce the rule of law. And since you are not an expert on constitutional law, and neither am I, but I believe that we should respect what is obvious - ruling stands, those symbols are never used in any instance beyond local, and that's that. As for Wikipedia, symbols which are ruled unlawful can't be presented in articles as if they are. The only article where those symbols can be used is on Bosnian Croat civil symbols. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, you're missing the point. The law is in force, the flag is legal. It's official. The court's decision from 1998 cannot apply to future laws. Same as slavery was once a guaranteed right according to the US Constitutional Court, now it isn't. The decisions of the court aren't always the same. For example, the Constitutional Court ruled that the flag of Republika Srpska is constitutional since its "pan-Slavic". You obviously do not understand how things work. Your sentence that "you don't really care whether the a law is in force on lower level", really shows you don't understand this. The law cannot be in force on a lower level if annulled by the Constitutional Court. Some articles of the cantonal constitution were put out of force by a court of a "higher" instance. This was done for the cantonal constitution, but not for the 2003 law. The ruling stands yes, even now, for the matter it was discussed - the cantonal constitution. Because of the ruling, the constitution was changed. The court's decision is in force as well. Also, the symbols aren't unlawful. @Amatulic:, whom you tagged, also said if one can present a law after the courts decision that shows the flag is in the official use, he was ok with it. The law of 2003 *was not* discussed by the court in 1998. That would be preposterous. Also, whatever your opinion on the flag - a reliable source - Željko Heimer, states that this *is* the flag of the canton. Governor Sheng (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

3O Response: I think it can be included in the infobox and these flags are official. While the flag blog person didn't provide any sources to the laws, I found these laws on the canton's official website. The flag blog is enough of an expert, but they don't really verify the laws. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. Governor Sheng (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu @Governor Sheng; flags are not official, thus cannot be used in Infobox. Constitutional court ruled them unconstitutional because they discriminate against other constitutive nations (links to those rulings are posted several times in above discussions). The fact that canton government using the flag against these rulings, whenever and wherever they can, does not make them official, it makes them illegal and those people who using them disrespectful to rule of law (no other country's official institution using them). The fact is that local nationalists don't respect their own institutions, their own country's highest court which exists to (in)validate all laws, and that the country has problem to enforce the rule of law. These flags are civil flags, noting more, and we use them as an illustration at article about that particular constituent nation. Any attempt to present them as official here would just reflect ethno-nationalist bickering within the country politics - canton, per these rulings, cannot use such flags, end of story. Sheng knows where else they can be included without problem, but his own persistence in presenting them as legal and official is a sign that they are not here to build wikipedia, instead they are persisting on these nationalistic issues in attempt to right great wrong(s), as they see it, and I am warning them that they are editing and discussing under ARBEE scope, and I am losing patient. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@except your entire argument falls apart when you actually consider the law after 2000 that gives them an official flag that hasn’t been discussed at all in constitutional court! I believe you are exhausting Sheng’s patience. There is no indication that the 2000s law is overturned by the 90s decision. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Read the ruling and then make "legal" comments on it. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I did. The ruling applies to the constitution and the reinstated flag is part of a law so until the constitutional court deems both unconstitutional again the flag is official. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Ruling provisions apply to any different treatment which is regarded as discrimination if there is no reasonable and objective justification, whereas the symbols of Herceg-Bosna, and sole Croatian symbols on any official insignia are regarded as discriminatory. (Not to mention that approval of symbols requires a majority vote in each House of the Legislature, which means that law enacted by canton is actually void if they can't pass Houses.) So, apart from being Constitutional court and not our average town marketplace, we can assume with quite enough degree of certainty that they actually knew what the problem is and what should be put in words in their ruling, and that those dates you two constantly bringing into focus are irrelevant for this discussion. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

You know that your own interpretation that the court's decision applies to the current law is a school example of wp:or. Governor Sheng (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

How you know that I am exhausting other's editor patience? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Santasa, you really don't have any good arguments here beside your own point of view and accusations that other editors, myself, are nationalists. This is childis and it is nonsense. I won't defend myself against your ridicilous accusations. You fail to make your point, and accuse everyon of being nationalistic - myself, the cantonal government etc. Constantly warning someone about something, without any merit whatsoever. Governor Sheng (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Santasa99: Do you have any comment on this? --Governor Sheng (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't really know how to proceed from here. It's clear that Santasa will stand their ground and this discussion isn't really going anywhere. Does this count as consensus? Can we just proceed with adding back the symbols? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No, you cannot add the symbols on the basis of sheer same pov-agreement with Sheng. That's not consensus, and neither of you have provided any argument except that canton breaking the law by acting and enacting local laws against the country's constitution. Say, like in this case. Meanwhile, both of you misinterpreting what is ruled in 1997 by the Constitutional court - its provision is clear: Polazeći od definicije Ustava Federacije BiH istaknute u Amandmanu III (1) koja osigurava konstitutivnost Bošnjaka i Hrvata na teritoriju Federacije BiH, koja se sastoji od federalnih jedinica s jednakim pravima i odgovornostima, ovaj sud nalazi da temeljna ideja ravnopravnosti ova dva naroda mora biti održana i na kantonalnoj razini odnosno na svim razinama Federacije. Ta ideja mora doći do izražaja i u znamenjima kantona (grbu i zastavi). Znamenje kantona ne smiju predstavljati tradicije samo jednog konstitutivnog naroda, jer je to protivno temeljnoj ideji Ustava Federacije BiH. Prema tome, grb i zastava moraju izražavati pripadnost Federaciji i kantonu. To znači da moraju sadržavati i regionalne zemljopisne karakteristike kantona (člađnak I. 2. ). Kako su grb i zastava u čl. 8. i 9. Ustava Hercegbosanske županije koncipirani na način da su u njima istaknute tradicijesamo jednog konstitutivnog naroda (Hrvata), u suprotnosti su sa Ustavom Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine. This means that, like in any other country, Constitutional court ruling cannot be overturned simply by trickery of ethno-nationalists at local levels, and that no number and amount of enacted "new" laws and face-lifting of the canton's constitution at the local lower level can ever change the fact of what was decided by Constitutional court in 1997, unless country's constitution itself is changed or country cease to exist entirely. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

So you have confused two completely different cases. Canton 10 also has a decision of the constitutional court, and the constitutional court abolished the *constitutional* provisions of Canton 10. Canton 10 did absolutely nothing in this matter, in terms of complying with the decision of the constitutional court.

On the other hand, the West Herzegovina Canton, after a different verdict (it is not the same verdict), adapted its Constitution and passed a legal provision on the flag.

The court never discussed the subject provision of the West Herzegovina Canton. Whether something is a "trickery", or whether something is constitutional or legal, ultimately should not be your personal assessment, as you are doing now. The court should discuss something like this again for your point to be correct. It is not the first time in history that the same court makes two diametrically opposed decisions. We cannot know that. Anything beyond that is speculation, and we don't want to deal with that here.

I understand your position, but it is basically incorrect. Governor Sheng (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Firstly this is again original research and you need to provide references that the new local law is invalid under that, but since this is clearly going nowhere and the rfc has received no attention at all, should we move this to DRN? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

In principle, why the West Herzegovina Canton did not have a flag is because the Constitutional Court *deleted* the relevant provisions from the Canton Constitution. Given that from 1998 to 2003, there were no provisions on the flag, this canton did not even have a flag during that period. After 2003, we have a fully valid law according to all criteria, at least as far as the law-making procedure itself is concerned. According to all these criteria, this law is fully valid. The fact that Santasa99 doesn't like the mechanism by which the canton passed this law or that they think that the court would eventually find this law unconstitutional, remains, I say again, their exclusive personal assessment, which we cannot take into account in an encyclopedia. These are things of a speculative nature. Governor Sheng (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

[16]https://www.ustavnisudfbih.ba/hr/open_page_nw.php?l=bs&pid=178 ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: I agree with the DRN proposal. Governor Sheng (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't need to provide anything more than I already provided - it's exactly other way around, it is up to you two to provide a reference to be able to include something into article, a Reliable Source which shows us that highest court in every normal country (that's being Constitutional court) can simply be dismissed at local level, through trickery or not. Funny thing about OR, I was thinking you two are doing the same thing - like (mis)interpreting laws, constitutions, and official govt pages and documents. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

So, the decision from 1997 discussing the cantonal constitution (A) is relevant to the 2003 law (B) how? I already provided the source - the law itself and Željko Heimer. Governor Sheng (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the 1997/98 ruling is still relevant to this day, because it tackles issue of discriminatory symbols, symbols which are created to reflect only one peoples tradition discriminate against other two constituent peoples and are thus against the state constitution. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

By the same criteria you're using here, you could also remove the flag from Posavina Canton, as it fails to represent the Serb national group. And I believe you'll notice why this is problematic. It's original research and POV. Governor Sheng (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RfC on sources of West Herzegovina Canton symbols. Thank you. --Aaron Liu (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Officiality of Symbols

Moved from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 396 § RfC on sources of West Herzegovina Canton symbols

AFAIK the only body that can decide if something is unconstitutional is the country's constitutional court, or other courts that are empowered with interpreting the constitution (also, laws are normally constitutional unless declared unconstitutional by competent judicial authorities). So everything else is a private opinion. You can indicate that some lawyers (incl. the Ombudsman) think that the regulation is unconstitutional but their opinion is not authoritative because they are not the ones who get to decide whether they are constitutional. Of course, if the government retires the symbol because of concerns about constitutionality, you can mention this but it says nothing about whether it is actually compliant. Not for RSN. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Santasa99's claim is that because the constitutional court ruled the symbols unconstitutional in the past, the ruling still applies after canton 8 circumvented the ruling by moving the symbols to a law, which they also somehow believe is supported by their supplied sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how Bosnian law works, and whether the parliament may annul the rulings of the constitutional Court, and that is IMHO a key issue. If it was unconstitutional because it was passed as an ordinance rather than a law (as it should have been), then it's fine today. If the symbols themselves are unconstitutional, then you can say that the constitutional court ruled them illegal but they were readopted and so far not challenged (successfully) in court. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the latter. So far they weren't challenged so so far they are still in place. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

And since "challenge" is order of the day, I doubt that you are interpreting above comment correctly, which itself is not sufficiently and properly informed comment to begin with. BUT regardless, that's just me, and that's just above commenter and you. We need sources - comments themselves can't be taken for granted nor turned into wikivoice. And so far, symbols are illegal, and can't be put into infobox, but just like above comment, that's another story, for another venue. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I lost you there. What is ”challenge” is order of the day supposed to mean? What sources tell you that the flag law itself is “illegal” or unconstitutional?(Note: this question is what we’re arguing here)

Exactly as you claim, comments/original research of statements WP:SYNTHd cannot be included in articles such as your reasoning that “the symbols were struck down in the past so even if they move the symbols to another document the symbols are still unconstitutional”. No reliable source says such a thing (the Tacno is an opinion piece so it can’t be used per RS) so you can’t include that in the article. However, my included part “Symbols were in the constitution but then court struck it down so they restored the symbols by moving it to a law” IS mentioned in this order (Heimer; Ombudsman 65). While I agree that Heimer isn’t good enough to support the symbols on its own, the ombudsman also supports this so the symbols are supported by reliable sources as standing and should be included in the infobox.

This dispute, at its core, is about refuting the reasoning in paragraph two. The reasoning in paragraph two is mainly about whether sources support a statement. Thus, we are currently discussing at RSN. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

By the way, on earlier Aron's reply: 1) yes constitutional court ruled in 1997 and '98, which is in the past, but its ruling made symbols unconstitutional into infinity(!) which means "the ruling still applies"; 2) canton 8 did not circumvent anything, the law was there to begin with (Official Gazette 1/96, 2/99, 14/00, 17/00, 1/03, 10/04, 17/11)). And to Szm-wiecki question, short answer would be big fat no, parliament cannot annul constitutional court rulings - rulings are permanent, for all times without an expiration date. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The indefinite ruling was on the constitution, not the law or the symbols. You would have to prove with sources that the ruling applies to the laws or the symbols. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Constitutional court is a supreme court of the country that weighs on legality and constitutionality of any and all laws of the country. Its jurisdiction does not stop at some point of one's choosing's - any and every law of that country can be in contradiction with a constitution, get it !? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they can choose at any point to overturn that law and they have the power to but they HAVEN’T yet and the previous ruling only applied to the constitution, so the symbols in the law haven’t been overturned yet. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not just completely, absolutely inaccurate view of the situation, it is most of all counterintuitive, utterly illogical (a rhetorical question for the argument sake, which supreme court in which country would be that incompetent that it can be outwit by local politicians playing legal cat-and-mouse with the court's decisions; notwithstanding actual thorough explanations offered countless times in this months-long debate, which makes me feel haunted with its circular nature), and I really don't want to draw admins' attention on myself by participating any further in part of debate that this board is not supposed to host. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

That's what I thought how it normally functions, and at least it's very similar to where I live (also civil law country). In short:

1. This discussion no longer makes sense on RSN, because editors can't agree on the basic question of whether the law applies.
2. As I said, the only body which can strike down laws is the FBiH Constitutional Court or the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Obviously, the rulings don't expire but the rulings apply to the Constitution and that particular law.
3. If the law is on the books it must be applied until it either gets repealed or struck down. So yes, this can very much be a whack-a-mole if politicians insist on ignoring the constitutional court rulings (which appears to be the case). Yes, it is illegal to do this but basically you can't determine this until the court says it is illegal. In extreme cases, politicians ignore the rulings of the constitutional court and then have problems before the ECHR because some of its judges were sworn in despite the instruction of the constitutional court not to do that (I mean Poland, obviously). The courts don't really have tools per se to enforce their rulings, so these situations do happen, even if they are very likely illegal.
4. Wikipedia operates on American law, so no legal constraints as far as WP is concerned (you should mention that the same symbols were proclaimed unconstitutional).
5. To conclude, the symbols are official and enforced. The law itself is likely illegal but it takes a constitutional court to say this, every time. Scholars of constitutional law, if they are not on the bench, may at best opine about legality. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

   How does the ruling apply to the law? The law came out after it was struck down and the ruling only applied to the cantonal constitution. I now agree with every other part of your response though.

   Now if we agree on Szmenderowiecki points, we have to find somewhere to discuss whether or not to include the symbols in the infobox. My only take is the article's talk page, any other suggestions? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

   I would agree on all points, but I would not call symbols "official" - symbols are de jure illegal, but de facto used in some places on local (canton) level, but not in all places, all the time, even in that canton on local level of government in municipalities - it is enough to certain municipality in that canton is governed by a party in power which is respectful to Bosnian constitution and rule of law, and they will not use their canton's symbols nor canton's government could force them to use those symbols. Not to mention that no institution on above levels of government use them anywhere, anytime. So, the situation is of such a nature that we as a project cannot use them in Infobox, rather we can use them in article body with a description of the situation. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

   If the law is on the books it must be applied until it either gets repealed or struck down. So yes, this can very much be a whack-a-mole if politicians insist on ignoring the constitutional court rulings (which appears to be the case). Yes, it is illegal to do this but basically you can't determine this until the court says it is illegal.

   TL;DR: The law itself is likely illegal but it takes a constitutional court to say this, every time. So the symbols in the law aren't really de jure illegal either. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

   Who says so?! ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

   I shouldn't have said it like that, "who says so", it sounds disrespectful to Szmenderowiecki and his fine expose, it wasn't my intention. But, I guess, I hope, my point came across without such connotations. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

   And it was rhetorical - I really think this RfC should be closed at this point. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

   Actually the RfC was already closed upon archival, currently we're discussing. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

   I also agree that we should probably move it somewhere else like the article talk page. Which reply do you think we should move from? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

   The ruling just says "Constitution" without any mention of "Law". If there is a source that indicates that const. court ruling apply to all related material including laws I'd be happy to take a look at it. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

   Aron, I really have nothing more to say that I already did not say in few months long discussion all over the place - to make a repetitive argument again and again does not make any easier to sway discussion in one's favor. Further, very important is that since you would like to include something into article, you should provide strong sources that explain exactly what you are claiming right now, and we both know it is unlikely that this is possible. Then, all uninvolved outsiders (non-Balkan based, non Serbo-Croatian speaking editors), whenever they came with a concrete proposal, they suggested that compromise which include symbols in article body with an explanation is most reasonable approach (Spellcast as an admin who protected Canton 10 and moved discussion at WHCanton TP, Anachronist summoned by 3O and pinged by me, and SMcCandlish), given problematic nature of this case. In that light, whatever you think should be done with image of symbols and explanation in article's body, it's OK by me. What I sincerely believe and it's my honest opinion, is that Infobox is out of the question in this situation. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

   With all due respect, I bring this up "again and again" because we have failed to resolve this issue at the core of this debate "again and again" because in the past when I bring up this point you just repeat your previous points. I have provided a source that the ruling applies to the constitution, it's in the text of the ruling. However the text of the ruling doesn't say the specific ruling applies anywhere else so it is on you to find a source that supports the claim that the ruling applies to other places. The previous discussion's supporter of the symbols brought up points that were very invalid, but this discussion didn't just bring up the same points. Thus It's a different discussion.

   @Santasa99 @Szmenderowiecki Pinging both of you bc I finally moved it Aaron Liu (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

   For the love of God, Aron, this really does not seem the right way to start a new TP discussion. First, what's the point in copy/pasting things said elsewhere when you can use diff's if you need something to reiterate in new discussion. Second, you have copied only portion (less than a half) of that discussion, and it is obvious that you choose part which you believe could somehow support your argument and pinged only its author, but you left out, for instance, to ping another participating editor and copy/paste his very clear and concrete suggestion that could be deemed as utterly unsupportive to your argument. If you wanted to say something, you should have started anew, and use diff's and pings if you thought something should be reiterated or someone reminded of something. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

   Oh lord, could you think about things before making an accusation? This is like the third or fourth time already. First of all moving and starting anew are both equally viable choices, and using diffs is a bit tedious especially when the page is a centralized noticeboard. Secondly, The discussion parts before Sz was stale. They were three days without a reply. After Sz replied neither Banks nor Candlish have replied either. They will receive new notifications on the topic up to my move. On the contrary, you two are still actively replying and are likely to have read all the notifications, but the move doesn’t add a notification. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

   Well, this is not an accusation, but stating the fact - you are moving this around a lot, first through, let's say, correct process of reaching consensus, but now you are choosing parts of discussion and moving that around. You did this by making very selective choice of our discussion posts, most of all before all else's, my posts. which Presented like this it gives away a very skewed impression on how things went back there to anyone new who would like to participate here. Then For instance, it does not matter if SMcCandlish post is three days old, or that he did not respond after his last post - it is because he expressed himself clearly and definitively, when he very bluntly and concretely said don't put symbols into Infobox under these circumstances, instead use article body to describe the situation - you left it out and any editor who stumble across this, it will fall on me to make long and distracting explanations from where this comes from, and who said what elsewhere but not exactly elsewhere because it is a left out part of this discussion, and if I am that new editor coming here to argue something I would not feel comfortable with all that redirections and lateral explanations. To conclude, I get it, you are pushing it but all in good faith, and I really have no reason to believe differently, but that does not mean that you are infallible - and this was a mistake. Not to mention that for more than 12 years editors refusing to consent on symbol inclusion into infobox and senior experienced editors outsiders agree with refusal and proposed (and proposing) very common compromise. I mean, I have come to the point of exhaustion - we all have that point, right - and I hope you are not pursuing this until I simply give up. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if the following language comes off as condescending (which I try to avoid): Thanks for the good faith part, but SMcCandlish's compromise point is already included in the thread I moved over, his new point was that "there isn't really a thing such as a professional vexillologist" and we have long moved pass Heimer on this discussion. it will fall on me to make long and distracting explanations from where this comes from Isn't an explanation on the compromise already in the thread I copied over? Also, I mentioned this before but the argument in 2009 was very different as the side that wanted the symbols back then (Aradic-es) was very unreasonable and in general a very disruptive editor. However, we have other (IMO, very valid) points of discussion here.

Also, if you think someone (Sheng, Banks, Candlish, etc.) can bring up very good points then you are welcome to ping them yourself. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The arguments are very different, and other editors were actually willing to include the symbols in the infobox, it's just Aradic-es failed to make the point. They asked whether there's a law in force, enacted after the court's decision, so the symbols could be influded in the infobox, but they were ignornt of the 2003 law. Governor Sheng (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Google translated gist of the ruling (Ombudsman 123)  —Aaron Liu, 20:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

By the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in case number: U-7/98 of July 7, 1998, it was determined that Art. 8, 9, 10 and 30 of the Constitution of the West Herzegovina Canton (Official Gazette of the West Herzegovina Canton, number 1/96), are not in accordance with the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Also, the same Decision establishes that the use of the name "county" in Art. 1-18, 21, 26, 27, 29, 30, 36, 38, 42, 43, 45, 47, 49, 57, 71, 73, 78, 82 and 84 of the Constitution of the West Herzegovina Canton is not in accordance with the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And finally, this Decision establishes that Article II of the Constitution of the West Herzegovina Canton is not in accordance with the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Article II states that Croats and Bosniaks as constitutive peoples in the Federation together with others and citizens of the Canton exercise their sovereign rights in accordance with the Constitution of the Federation and this Constitution). The Constitution of the West Herzegovina Canton still contains a provision, which clearly indicates that the prevailing ethnic principle is still in favor of the two constituent peoples, Croats and Bosniaks. The decision of the Constitutional Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was not respected.

Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) makes a good point here, and has a very good legal understanding of how things work. The law we're discussing is in force and the flag is official. Whether it would be annulled by the constitutional court again - that we do no know. The court's decisions aren't always the same, and they change, depending on who's the judge. The constitutional court, bear in mind, is not a regular court, not the highest instance court. It's a separate, and actually the most political of all courts. The only court where judges do not have to pass the state exam (something like the bar exam, but not really). What I propose is that we make a rfc on whether the symbols should be in the infobox or not. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)