Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dado~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 17:38, 8 July 2006 (→Map - how about this). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

Official Languages

The official languages of the RS are Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian (or Bosniak, as Serbs insist it to be called) effectively, however, due to the inability to achieve compromise onthe name Bosnian (bosanski) vs. Bosniak (bošnjački), the official languages do not have a name in the Constitution of Republika Srpska, and they are instead listed as the languages of Serbs, Bosniaks, and Croats.

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

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

2005 Population estimate

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

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

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

Mediation

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

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

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

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

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

I am speaking out for the serbs. The reason for the much higher population of serbs in republika srpska after the war is because of ethnic cleansing that occured on both sides. For instance the federations population of serbs went down after the war and the republika's went up. This is because of the ethnic cleansing of serbs, bosniaks and croats throughout bosna.

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

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

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

Link to Greater Serbia article

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

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

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

A million non-Serbs (?)

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

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

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

REPUBLIKA SRPSKA:

This statistical data shows that in 1991 there was not even one million non-Serbs in Republika Srpska territory to begin with. I propose we change "a million non-Serbs" to "hundreds of thousands of non-Serbs", because 'a million' claim has no base in reality...

Republika Srpska Independence Userbox

Is it Possible to make an Userbox containing " Independence of Republika Srpska

One-word name of Republic of Srpska

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

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

(Srpski jezički priručnik, Beograd 2004)

some info here: http://www.rastko.org.yu/filologija/bbrboric-jezik/bbrboric-jezik5.html

Srpska - noun and adjective

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

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

Stevo

Internet domain

About statement that SR domain is SURINAM :-) Maybe as country code, but as YU domain is obsolete (there is no more any Yugoslavia) Serbia and Montenegro uses YU domain because we are legal sucessors and no solution for developed YU Internet domain to go to SM or SCG domain is offered. Inside YU domain, SR.YU subodomain is used to denote part of Serbian institutions and organisations in Serbia eg Goverment of Serbia and Monetenegro www.gov.yu Gouverment of Serbia www.sr.gov.yu Gouverment of Monte Negro www.cg.gov.yu

Go ahead, check it.

So, usage of .SR.BA for Republic of Srpska can be viewed as proper in theior own right, not influenced by Serbia.

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

We already have CS domain reserved, but since its hard to transit whole YU domain to CS (altough we could make a good domain sales to all those Counterstrike freaks :-) I believe we will just keep the old good YU domain ... like we still have JDP and JAT in Belgrade. Somet things slowly die :-) Dont worry, we wont become SURINAM, and I dunno what Montenigrins do. Dont forget its not WHEN but IF Montenegro becomes independent. And here I am talking about subdomains, so it can be SR.BA just as it can be SR.YU, right? --Rastavox 03:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

I dont know what makes you THAT sure, since they are divided society with same odds for both options. Plus its a loose state union where they have all attributes except forein attitude and army, where it costs much more to be indepedent (Serbia covers 95% of state budget, plus 50%+ montenigrins are somehow economicaly tied to Serbia - wheter study, emoloyed - independence would case multiply costs for them etc.). Serbia and Montenegro - Serbia even if Monetenegro is separated - is legal sucessor of last Yugoslavia and can keep YU domain, as it keeps it now. So ... think before your writte, OK? --Rastavox 06:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Pusi k....,ko te j...,moze Srpska i bez tebe federacijo,federacijoooo Dzoni

Should the title of this page be in English?

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

No it shouldnt Dzoni

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ja sam za tobom brate Dzoni!!! I think that Republika Srpska has the same rights as any republic to secede.- Lazar He means bosniaks r turks.- Lazar

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

Izvini, I didn't mean to offend you I was just saying what he meant.- Lazar Can you forgive me?

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

I'm sorry the texst isn'z in english it's for my friend Dzoni..

City populations

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

Names

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

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

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

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

Name

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

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

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

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

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

Name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Map and Coat of Arms

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

To the constant revert warriors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My edits explained

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

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

What I stated above: Are you disputing that the anglicised name is in fact Serb Republic? It's clearly stated in the name section that is not official, so what is the problem? --Lowg 23:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you disputing that the anglicised name is in fact Serb Republic? No one is saying that is official, and it's clearly stated in the name section that is not official, so what is the problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Serb Republic

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

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

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

Map - how about this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Municipalities maps

Since you talked about maps here, I guess you people might help us solve this issue: Image talk:BHMunicipalities.png. --Ante Perkovic 12:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics