Talk:Republika Srpska/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Banknote

Nikola Smolenski (Talk) (→Miscellaneous - Why would BH banknote be in article on RS?)

Anwswer: The BH banknote is the official currency of the RS. Furthermore this particular banknote featuring Brank Copic is the RS edition of the BH 50KM banknote. Stop removing it.

Change this

To some, the name and insignia of Republika Srpska are inherently intolerant towards other Bosnians and evoke very negative connotations of war-time problems for them. Is there a need for this. Is this very neutral? The very image of a "bosnian muslim" state, flag, insignia makes me want to vommit, but is that listed here? This is about Republika Srpska and not about the muslims. --Milan20 04:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the reason for this is that the court case was filed in BH constitutional court recently that asks for the change of the name and insignia of Republika Srpska. In fact for similar complaints Bosnian independence flag was abolished. --Dado 18:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Need for edit and overhaul

Frankly, this entire page is a disastrous mess. The bulk of the entry is neither correct, nor neutral, nor objective. It is is constantly peppered with rank irrelevancies and attacks upon one side or the other as well as irrelevant characterizations of some of the historical figures. Even this discussion page contains this sort of clearly absurd and non-neutral commentary (see 67.95.81.62's comments below). To make matters worse, the page has been freely edited by people who have, at best, a secondary understanding of the English language, as demonstrated by prodigious errors in spelling, grammar and diction - particularly when an insult or POV about the history of Bosnia is being expressed. It is worth working on the page by one or two people who are prepared to objectively repair this page. Please leave a mesage at my page if you would like to work with me to fix this (and some related pages). As it stands, this page is basically useless for anyone seeking information on the political entities in question.

--Nicodemus75 09:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please don't "organize" work on some semi-random talk pages and instead work on it here and discuss it here. --Joy [shallot] 13:23, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If I wish to "organize" a discussion about something on my own talk page, that is my preorgative. This is a perfect example of a page that people may wish to have seperate conversation considering the amount of non-neutral POV nonsense that has infiltrated the main article as well as the talk page. --Nicodemus75 07:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Description of creation

The Republic was formed by the Serbs of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992 after being disenfranchised by the joint Muslim-Croat political and later military alliance in Bosnia.

This is hardly an objective description of what happened, as I am sure you know. Adam 04:07, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That's a little better.2toise 04:26, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the disenfranchised comment is neither neutral nor correct - if a 67% majority including many Serbs voted for independence in a multi-ethnic state how is that disenfranchising Bosnian Serbs?

Internet domain

Regarding the top-level domain (TLD) -- the web page www.rs.sr seems to talk about getting the .SR TLD for the Entity (I don't read Cyrillic too well), but that's not done and .RS.SR is a second-level domain. Given that there's also .RS.BA, that both seem to be commercial entities, and that the institutions of are not using either, I doubt that either really qualify for an official listing... --Shallot 17:07, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To expand a little bit about this, there seems to be a lack of consensus as to where the RS pages should be located. There's vladars.net and predsjednikrs.net for the government and the president, but the securities commission is at khov-rs.org, the constitutional court is at ustavnisud.org, the privatization direction is at rsprivatizacija.com, chamber of commerce at pkrs.inecco.net, the statistics institute is at rzs.rs.ba, and the customs administration is at rucrs.com. The city of Banja Luka is at banjaluka.rs.ba, the university is at urc.bl.ac.yu, and etfbl.net is the electrotechnics faculty. Overall, there's still way too much diversity to list any domain as official. --Shallot 20:46, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

It seems that SARNET, the academic network of RS, is the .rs.ba NIC, and that's usually a step in making a domain the official one. However, they're not actually consistent in using it, since google still finds them primarily at sarnet.bl.ac.yu, and there's no redirection from there to sarnet.rs.ba. --Joy [shallot]

I've also noticed that the Radio Television company of RS is at rtrs.tv or rtrs-bl.com. --Joy [shallot]

This page also has a few more, and also mostly .org and whatnot. --Joy [shallot] 22:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stamps

I returned older text as User:TOttenville8 says that he was unable to purchase these stamps in San Francisco. I found no mention online of this. Rmhermen 13:46, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Unable to purchase them, from whom, where, when, why? That's nonsense. You can buy the stamps on Ebay, unless of course TOttenville8 claims that Ebay is breaking the law as well?

http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?query=srpska&ht=1&sosortproperty=1&from=R10&BasicSearch= Igor

Oh, I think that part is minor, he's merely trying to cover up the fact that there were scores of Bosnian Muslims living in Prijedor, Banja Luka and elsewhere in what is now RS and that they were mostly expulsed by the Bosnian Serbs during the war. That might undermine the whole point of this artificial political division, and we can't have that... :p --Shallot 16:47, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes but those Muslims never formed a majority in the region of Banjaluka as was written. Besides, the Sarajevo Serbs suffered much more ethnic cleansing (both numerically and percentage-wise) than the Bosnian Muslims Banja Luka. -- Igor

Just for the record, I found a related and very explicit quote at an ICTY indictment:

According to a census in 1991 the total population of the Bosanska Krajina region was 1,191,709 of whom 567,293 were Serbs, 439,935 were Bosnian Muslims and 103,111 Croats. There were, however, only a majority of Muslims and Croats, in Sanski Most, Prijedor, Kotor Varos and Bosanska Krupa municipalities.

So, it's true that the phrase "Serbs ... constituted a minority of the population in and around Banja Luka before the fighting" was incorrect (perhaps plurality in places, but not minority), but everything else and the overall meaning wasn't incorrect. --Joy [shallot]

.SR top domaine...

...doesn't it stand for Suriname, not Serbia? Just a cyberfreak out here...

Greetings, Muhamed

That's right. Serbia doesn't have a TLD - see the list at http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-whois.htm . It still comes under .YU. -- ChrisO 12:09, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

67.95.81.62's comments

Republic of Serbs needs to be taken from all the maps and documents, since it is a fashist state, created by war criminals, and by force against a civil population of Bosnia (Croats and Bosnian Muslims), it was created as a part of dictatorship idea of creation of greater Serbia. If Serbs are not happy to live with other nationalities in Bosnia they should move to Serbia. Milosevic is a war criminal as well as his communist JNA (Yugoslav People's Army) did this with help of the nationalist Bosnian serbs. John

---

Dear John, Serbs and Croats have been living there since 6th century when their tribes came to Balcan. So called Muslims or Bosniaks are actually(mostly) those Serbs and Croats that were islamised during Othoman empire and been living with turkish masters for 500 years of occupation. Please go read history of Balcan(books before war recomended). Officially Muslims have been invented in 1968 and Bosniaks in 1993. Think why they called themself muslims with big M? I call this crisis of identity.

Btw Croats also had their state called Herceg-Bosna that is suposed to became part of Great Croatia, Croats also fighted with Muslims and Muslims also fighted Muslims especially in around Cazin and Bihac. And it's even more complicated, but it's too much to write...

---

Well said John. This so called Republic of Serbs is a product of ethnical cleansing and should be dismantled. It is a byproduct of Dayton Peace Accord and de facto it is award for the crimes that Serbian forces committed against Bosnian non-Serb population. Existence of this un-natural state, which turned segregation into the law of the land, is a major cause of instability in a region.

Official language(s)?

According to the webpage of the Republika Srpska government, the Constitutional amendment LXXI provides that "the official languages are the Serbian language, Croatian language and Bosnian language, refered to by the Constitution as Bosniak language", replacing paragraph 1. of article 7. of the RS Constitution. Would someone please correct the article and the adjoining table? Thx, Muhamedmesic 16:09, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Done. -- ChrisO 17:25, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

ChrisO, I'm beginning to admire you. - Muhamedmesic 19:46, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Names of towns

It's not really relevant, but here it comes: according to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and this Republika Srpska source of news, the names of several renamed towns and municipalities in Republika Srpska, including Srbinje (previously Foca), Srpsko Sarajevo (previously Lukavica), Srpski Drvar (previously Drvar), Srpski Sanski Most (previously Sanski Most), Srpski Mostar (previously part of Mostar Municipality), Srpski Kljuc (previously Kljuc), Srpska Kostajnica (previously Bosanska Kostajnica), Srpski Brod (previously Bosanski Brod), and a couple others (to spare you of the list) are unconstitutional and must be accordingly changed in the appropriate RS law. Until that is done, the court has reversed their names to their 1992 ones.

We watch TV. I doubt that local population will use new/old names however. Nikola 14:29, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The names are changed again. Should we follow the new names (and how, literally or translated) or just leave the articles as they are? This whole naming issue might deserve an article... Nikola 09:01, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Official clarification page

Republika Srpska government has a page that shows the present status of municipality names. Follow this link to track the changes

Map should be fixed

Its good that there is now a map on this article. However the map is faulty in that shows the Brcko district as part of Republika Srpska. Whatsmore it isnt of the best quality. If someone has the time Id suggest editing one of the maps I made on the Bosnia and Herzegovina page on Bosnian wiki [1]. Asim Led 04:30, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The map is ok

The map is not false because it portrays the entity in its entirety - including the Republika Srpska territory within the Brcko District. Claim that the Brcko District is not part of either the Federation or Republika Srpska might de facto be true (that is how things are run on the ground), but de iure it is false. If the Brcko District was not part of either entity, this would imply that the District is in fact the third entity. This would be a major breach of the general framework of the Dayton peace agreement (and Bosnia-Herzegovina constitution), which states that the country is internally composed of only two entities. Also, the Brcko District as 'not part of either entity' would make the territorial formula agreed at Dayton (49% of Bosnia-Herzegovina as Republika Srpska, 51% as Federation) unworkable. OHR, Office of the High Representative, provided a clarification on the status of the Brcko District, stating that the District is in fact a condominium of both entities. This would mean that the territory of the District is shared by both entities, although the entities exercise no executive power there. In other words, the Brcko District territory is both Republika Srpska and the Federation. Technically, this would apply to the whole territory of the District - in that way, there is no third entity, and 49-51% formula is (somehow) preserved. That said, it should be pointed out that the Brcko District was proclaimed on the whole territory of the prewar Brcko municipality. According to the Dayton map, 42% of the prewar Brcko municipality (including the town of Brcko) ended up in the Republika Srpska (this is the District territory marked on the Republika Srpska map in the article), while 58% of the prewar Brcko municipality ended up in the Federation (this part of the District is not marked on the map). Although the Brcko District was proclaimed in 1999, IEBL (Inter Entity Boundary Line) within its territory was never officially abolished; IEBL plays no administrative function within the District, except to mark the line beyond which the Bosnian Serb Army (Vojska Republike Srpske) traveling through the District can not go. Thus, it remains unclear how the entities hold the condominium over the whole District if the IEBL still exists on the books, and the District was created out of uneven chunks of both entity's territory. Given the fact that the Republika Srpska never officially accepted the arbitration result (one of the reasons IEBL was never officially abolished), the only solution is to show the Republika Srpska territory within the Brcko District (42% of it) on the Republika Srpska entity map, but color it differently (as done on the article map). The same formula should be used vis-à-vis the Federation territory within the Brcko District (58% of it) on the Federation entity map. When you put all of this together, you have a map of Bosnia-Herzegovina showing only two entities but also acknowledging the existence of the Brcko District - the neutral position.

p.s.

The 'condominium' idea is demonstrated by the way in which people declare themselves within the District. Citizens of the District have a right to hold entity citizenship of either Republika Srpska or the Federation, and have the right to vote on their entity's elections, although they are banned from serving in either entity's army.

Major overhaul needed

I would completely agree that this page needs a major overhaul especially in light of the most recent events in BH and RS. There should be some system of relevance and priority of information. How do information about postage stamps find their place at the top of the historical facts of the article is beyond me. Other items need to be updated: RS's ministry of internal affairs (police) and ministry of defense (military) were abolished in mid Dec of 2004 and integrated with BH ministries, I also believe that the customs department was integrated with BH although I cannot confirm this. These items should be replaced and moveed if anywhere than in the "History" portion of the article. "On the Internet" part of the article is laughable and useless, and a case point of how POV's go awry. I can begin making some changes but want to have a concensus before any of the changes get reverted.--Dado 02:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The information about police and military ministries is partially up to date, and it's definitely not just "history", because it's a current political issue. I believe the customs department has long been part of the BH customs system, but each entity has preserved some jurisdiction over the customs in their territory... The stuff about Internet domains is most certainly not useless — if anything, as you say yourself, it shows how things are unsettled.

On a side note, what is this trend with suddenly discussing major changes here? If something needs to be done, just do it. If it doesn't, don't. Where's the problem? The anonymous vandals for one have had no problem with being bold in editing this page, I don't see what's stopping normal users :) --Joy [shallot] 07:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dado, thanks for some support in terms of the need to overhaul this article. It definitely needs to be a collaborative effort for a variety of reasons. With respect to internet domain names, please be serious - it is a footnote at best and the amount of space dedicated to it in this article is completely laughable - unsettled or not. The postage stamp issue is equally absurd when compared to virtually any other country or similar political zone with a page on wikipedia. In response to Joy's "side note", the reason why this 'trend' is cropping up, is because of the amount of work required on a page which has been so poorly written and subjected to POV and non-neutral contribution, is so incredibly massive, that even experienced contributors have grown tired of investing time and energy into pages which will be subjected to revert wars and vandalism, without a collaborative effort and some concensus. I actually think this would be obvious given some of the revert wars that have and continue to plague wikipedia. Collaboration and discussion prior to investing hours of time and effort on an article such as this one, are necessary to prevent wasted time and duplication of labor. --Nicodemus75 08:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Postage stamps and Internet domains wouldn't stand out so much if we had better organized history, politics, geography, ... sections. The page will either have "silly" sections or be "poor" in content, until someone writes the missing stuff. And the only way to write the missing stuff is to actually do it. Talk about it on the talk page may help if we have contentious issues to discuss, but right now we don't have that, either, because all this cool new text -- doesn't exist.

Also note that I've been active for months with reference to vandalism etc, so I really don't need to be lectured on how experienced contributors have grown tired of investing time and energy into this page. --Joy [shallot] 11:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Joy, thanks for taking time to make the changes. I wanted to have this discussion before this major change took place so that there is an evident trail of thought behind the revision. I will contribute to the article as needed from this point on.--Dado 18:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An article intended to represent reality or touristic promotion?

The RS is poor, among the lowest GDPs in Europe, a fact. Why then does one receive the impression that the infrastructure is highly developed and living standards high by looking at the photos included into the article? It is obvious then that they constitute an attempt to portray the RS as more charming and enticing than what it is, i.e. touristic promotion of a developmental country with developmental living standards. It is misleading and the cities of RS should be presented in photos that are representative of the living conditions, which are unfortunately among the worst in Europe and Bosnia. Hence, I hereby declare my intention to change a large part of the current photos for more representative ones. I would appreciate help. / Dragan — Preceding unsigned comment added by DraganNiksic (talk • contribs) 10:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo section

Who take care of this thread? Why photo of Milorad Dodik is removed? Why there are not photos of Monastery of Dobrun, ethno village Stanisic and some other goods of the Republic of Srpska? Extend this thread but good way!109.121.39.201 (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Lists, demographics, and verifiability

Sadly, lots of our articles on the human geography of the Balkans have a problem; people change numbers around. Even apparently-sourced numbers sometimes disagree with what the source says. We have that problem here. This is supposed to be an encyclopædia; we shouldn't be serving content to readers if it can't be trusted, so I tried to remove it. It is unfortunate that this edit got reverted even though some of the numbers don't match what the source says. If anybody else is able to build accurate sourced content without adult supervision, then I would welcome it, but just lazily hitting the revert button to add stuff which isn't true is a Bad Thing. bobrayner (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources overkill

There is no requirement to remove lists of settlements presented on account of the fact that there is "no source". This page is about an entity and the population listings support the entity but no reader needs a complete list of citations for each town size. It merely clutters the article with information not directly concerning the subject. You simply wikilink the items and the reader can follow the lead for himself, and anyone who discovers a wrong entry per sources on the article, well he can change those parts when required. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to reinsert just a list of settlements without populations, that's fine by me; or fix the errors. I don't really care which. However, deliberately reinserting stuff with factual errors, like this, is a Bad Thing. Interestingly, FKPCascais uses the edit summary "Fix them then... or go to talk... don´t edit war", which is difficult to reconcile with FkpCascais' actions: Repeated reinsertion of factual errors, whilst refusing to ether fix it or participate on the talkpage. Just another day in the Balkans... bobrayner (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we should just stick to what the sources say. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The entire section is sourced by this source which is found in the intro of the section. I couldn´t understand well what Bobrayner problem is, but if he spoted some numers different from the source, well, he can allways correct them, rather then removing the hole section. That was my only point. Beside, if any more sources are needed, perhaps for specific cities or towns, they can allways be brought here. However, removing an entire sourced section is a no-no. Best regards to all FkpCascais (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

My only genuine issue is that it certainly needs cleaning up, a proper table supplied, etc. and if figures are inacurate, well they can easily be changed. No single editor is delibrately pushing for town populations to be wrong to conceal their NPOV violations (eg. claiming the non-existing Serbian army carried out operations in Kosovo 1999 and putting this in place of the Yugoslav army). It's a funny old world. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 10:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

If the information can easily be corrected, then perhaps you could correct it, instead of tag-teaming to restore text which you know is false. You're both experienced editors; how on earth can you still believe it's acceptable to hammer the revert button and reintroduce such a basic problem into articles? Connecting this problem - the wrong populations of towns - to the naming of forces in Kosovo in 1999 is an obvious non-sequiteur. Putting crap in this article just because you're angry about different crap in different articles is a perfect example of disruptive, WP:POINTy editing. bobrayner (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I simply believe we should stick to what the sources say. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet you deliberately introduce content which disagrees with sources. Why? bobrayner (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to population figures, even the welter of sources themselves are at odds. If you can show me which source you are using then I have no problem with filling in the numbers per that citation. Large areas covering multiple towns and cities need a guide to report sizes of settlements and most pages have them. Many are well presented such as the Macedonian entry[2]. I see no reason we cannot do the same here. As for figures not matching exactly those listed on the source at the top of the section, no user is satisfied as to why the person who spots this does not rectify the problem but instead wipes the entire section. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a source. You inserted numbers which contradicted that source. That's a Bad Thing. I removed numbers which contradicted the source; that's a Good Thing. It's very simple. Seriously, this is supposed to be an encyclopædia, not a race to create as much worthless text is possible. If you want to add stuff, it's your responsibility to make sure that it's right, instead of leaving a trail of factual errors and then criticising the people who try to clean up the mess. bobrayner (talk)

I inserted the figures in accordance with the source provided. You didn't tidy anything, you blanked the section. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, just drop it. "in accordance with the source provided" does not mean hitting the revert button and adding content which contradicts the source. Why are we even discussing this now? You later changed direction and inserted correct numbers; it should be over now. bobrayner (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Former" unrecognised?

Why the category "former" unrecognised countries? It is still not recognised. --Oddeivind (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I assume because it's no longer claiming to be a country so recognition doesn't come up. Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Muslims by nationality/Bosniaks

First of all, let me say it is not my wish to offend anyone. I know this is a sensitive issue and that it arouses a lot of emotions. That said, an encyclopaedia should, as far as possible, reflect the truth and be factually accurate.

The last census on the territory of today's Bosnia and Herzegovina was conducted in 1991, as part of the last federal Yugoslavian census. That census counted and recorded Muslims by nationality and not Bosniaks. The rights and wrongs of that are not the issue, the issue is that is what was recorded. Previous censuses (i.e. Turkish and Austrian ones) classified the population according to religion. We can debate that in interpret that in various ways, but we cannot retroactively change the source data.

In addition, there is nothing to back up the assumption that if someone identified as a Muslim by nationality in 1991, that at the time they meant anything else (i.e. Bosniak), or that they necessarily consider themselves a Bosniak now. We have a testbed for that in Serbia and Montenegro, where the people who were counted as Muslims by nationality in 1991 now mostly identify as Bosniaks, but some still as Muslims by nationality, and indeed some as Montenegrins etc.

All of this is up for debate. The only thing that is not a matter of debate, but hard fact, are the recorded results of the 1991 census. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.237.225 (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Same nation, two different names; what we are looking at are synonyms. 'Bosnian (leave out Montenegro etc., this is a Bosnia and Herzegovina-related issue) Muslims in the former Yugoslavia form one and the same ethnic group and community with Bosniaks in post-Yugoslavia, there is no separating them. Muslims (nationality) was merely a governmental policy and not an actual ethnicity (since obviously a Muslim is a religious adherent). Serb and Croat nationalist POV goes along the lines that Muslims are something invented in the 60s and then renamed into Bosniaks in 1993; historically inaccurate in every possible way. The Bosniak name goes back centuries. It is no secret either than any form of Bosniak/Bosnian nationhood was suppressed from the very start in the first Yugoslavia, and after WWII, in the second Yugoslavia. It is true that a minority of the former "Muslims by nationality" still use that designation but they are not even close to overriding the synonymy which Bosniak and Muslim (nationality) constitute in this Bosnian context. Case in point is that Bosniaks became "Muslims by nationality" in the former Yugoslavia, and not that "Muslims by nationality" became Bosniaks during the Bosnian war. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 16:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, writing "since then, overwhelmingly these people identify as Bosniaks" is complacent and brassy; can you with any certainty say that Muslims on the ground did not feel as Bosniaks already in the former Yugoslavia? The Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina have consistently had sense of Bosnian nationhood, hence their bid for independence in the early 90s, however Yugoslavia was a totalitarian state where people were imprisoned for their thoughts, as such "Muslims by nationality" was merely a (rather absurd) policy imposed by the Yugoslav government. Whatever the case, the current phrasing clearly underscores that those 43.5% were recognized as "Muslims" at the time, and not as Bosniaks. Invoking the small percentage, mostly outside of Bosnia and Herzegovina for that matter, which still consider themselves "Muslims by nationality" does not cancel the synonymy. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 17:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

May I just also add that the election law of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, recognizes the results from 1991 population census as results referring to Bosniaks. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You are very good at recognising every POV as subjective, apart from your own :) Don't worry, I won't change it back - but I'm sure someone else will pick up on this some other time. Don't stress yourself too much. Pozdrav iz Srpske Republike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.110.61 (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and might that someone else by any chance be you once you've sock-puppeted your way through yet another IP? Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 19:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Increase in percentage of Serbs

Originally we had the following information:

Republika Srpska's population of Serbs had increased by 547,741 and ethnic cleansing considerably reduced the numbers of other groups.

It had been tagged as needing citation and then a Judah source was added, but with it came a remark and there have been several attempts to restore this comment:

Serb police, soldiers, and irregulars attacked muslims and Croats, and burned and looted their homes. Some were killed on the spot; others were rounded up and killed elsewhere, or forced to flee.

I have not removed the source but I have taken out this "blog report" style. Firstly this article is about an existing geographical entity. The paragraphs concerning this content merely focus on parts of the population rising and others falling. The points about the difficulties returnees face when they are not Serb is fine for inclusion, but this graphic description of what Serb irregulars did belongs primarily on the Bosnian war article, and more so (if articles have been created) on the actual operations where the Serb forces defeated their opponents because burning and looting of homes/killing on the spot normally takes place in the aftermath of a victorious battle (taking over a neighbourhood, village, settlement, etc). I insist that it must be kept off this paragraph, the fact that it is mentioned in the source doesn't make it relevant (we're not going to rewrite Judah's entire book). Zavtek (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Striking out sockpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Article title?

I recently travelled to Bosnia by car from Croatia and noticed that bilingual signs welcoming visitors on internal borders of Srpska with Brčko District read "Welcome to Republic of Srpska" in English. Also, its official government page renders the name as "Republic of Srpska". The same English-language rendering is used at the national assembly page, the president's website and many other state institutions, such as Republic of Srpska Investment Bank, Republic of Srpska tax administration, Archive of Republic of Srpska, Museum of Republic of Srpska, etc. So this is obviously the official rendering in English. So how about moving the article to Republic of Srpska? Timbouctou (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be right. FkpCascais (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The English language translation used by institutions of Republika Srpska is irrelevant unless it can be proven that majority of English language sources use the same translation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought this was an official talking point that we had an explicit explanation for in the article... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I missed the "Name" section, silly me. Still, I don't think a simple WP:COMMONNAME applies here since the English-language name seems to have been standardised only recently. The articles by Guardian, BBC and NYT cited are all almost five years old, and I assume they followed the old English-language constitution of the entity which used "Republika Srpska" in its text. This has obviously been changed in the meantime and we should probably look for more recent usage. I don't see why an internationalism such as "republic" wouldn't be translated. Timbouctou (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Why wouldn't WP:COMMONNAME be applied here? There are hundred thousand English sources for this state entity. I performed GBS and found 90,800 Republika Srpska : 6,460 Republic of Srpska. Here are Google Ngram results which are also in favor of existing title.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I explained why - old usage was based on old constitution which specifically used "Republika Srpska" in its official English language translation. Up until this was changed (I don't know when but it must have happened recently) all references to RS in English either used the complete native name or some descriptive translation (like "Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina", "Bosnian Serb Republic", etc.) Your Ngram search adds little to the discussion as it only goes up to 2008, so its endpoint is even older than articles already cited in the Name section. But nevermind. I guess we'll have to wait a few more years for "Republic of Srpska" to filter through to BBC. However, the sheer volume of documents published by the ICTY using the outdated form "Republika Srpska" is reason enough for GoogleBooks results to be skewed for years to come. Timbouctou (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The Name section still seems to stand, if you Google the two phrases on site:news.bbc.co.uk you still get ~353 : ~14, and a cursory look at those 14 doesn't show them to be recent at all. It's even worse for site:nytimes.com - ~1300 : ~92, ditto for the recentism. It just didn't seem to catch on. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

As Timbouctou noteced, seems that the RS institutios themselfs started to use the "Republic of Srpska" naming consistently when applied in English. That is why I supported the move. I don´t see much controversy in the move (if happends), it´s basically the same and without any complex issues or implications. Personally, some time ago I noteced that article titles related to RS differed: some had Republika Srpska, others Republic of Srpska. I changed many from Republic to Republika only because the article title of this main article was Republika, however changing them all to Republic of will not be a problem. For me it makes sense changing it, as the RS institutions themselfs use the Republic term when in English, ad it is actually more correct in English language. FkpCascais (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem of actual English-language usage remains. Usually you have something like Republic of Mordovia and then a search for "site:news.bbc.co.uk Mordovia -Republic", no matter how few hits it actually gives, will eventually lead to a modicum of sentences such as in a prison in the bleak wastes of Mordovia. In other words, the term "Mordovia" is imported as a proper noun. Whereas, an analogous search in this case, "site:news.bbc.co.uk Srpska -Republic", leads only to the uses of the phrase "Republika Srpska" as a proper noun, typos and verbatim copies of other proper nouns that include the word ("Srpska Online"). Thinking about this some more, there is a kind of a logic in this - English translators don't do the analogous thing with the other similar phrase, "Republika Hrvatska", instead they use a Latin-derived translation of the second word. Nobody's come up with something like that in this case, and the entity is not actually one in a set of one or more republics, so the name is imported as a whole because it's hard to translate. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Languages

I am pretty sure that the mostly used (main) language in Republika Srpska is serbian and thats why I think it should be mentioned first in the infobox if we need to mention this languages individually. I could also very well live with the version before 28 of May where it was just Serbo-Croatian. In the end its all the same anyway, but thats my pov. Kind regards Seader (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion is one thing, but the facts is facts:
Please, read the Constitution of the Republika Srpska, and then you can change something:

Article 7:
Paragraph 1 of Article 7 has been replaced by Amendment LXXI, reading as follows:

The official languages in Republika Srpska are: the language of the Serb people, the language of the Bosniac people and the language of the Croat people. The official scripts are the Cyrillic script and the Latinic script.

In regions populated by other national communities, their languages and scripts shall also be in official use, as determined by law.

p.s. because there is no consensus whether this is the same language or three different languages, and no consensus about name of language(s). CarRadovan (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

CarRadovan is basically correct. To avoid naming Bosniak language as such, the constitution of Republika Srpska vaguely defined official languages. Shall wikipedia use the same terms? That is a matter of consensus. I think that the best way to avoid vague definition of languages is to present the official languages as Serbian, Bosniak and Croatian with a note for Bosniak language which would explain the situation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Why not use Serbian,Bosnian and Croatian language since they are linked anyway? Kind regards Seader (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article called Bosnian language. Though it would probably be more correct to call it "Bosniak language", virtually all sources call the language spoken by Bosniaks "Bosnian". [On a side note, all three "languages" in question are registers/regional dialects and variations of Serbo-Croatian (although the RS constitution doesn't define them as such; and frankly, neither does the BiH constitution).] Having said that, "Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian" is correct. 23 editor (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is necessary to add a note which would clarify position of Serbian Republic toward Bosniak/n language. Otherwise readers might be mislead to believe that Bosniak language is really defined as official in Serbian Republic, which would not be completely true.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@23 editor: One should be careful with terminology. B/C/S are neither registers nor dialects. They are known as "standards". Dialects are not standardised by definition, and the term register refers to forms of a language spoken by certain professions or groups of society. As for Bosniak/Bosnian - nobody calls it "Bosniak" in English, and the entire idea that languages belongs to ethnic groups as opposed to citizens of countries is pretty much alien to linguists outside the Balkans. Hence "Bosnian language", as in "language of Bosnia and Herzegovina" (just as we have "Serbian" and "Croatian", not "Serb language" or "Croat language"). As far as the constitution goes - the political description is irrelevant (again, another case of non-linguists talking about topics they barely understand) and we as an encyclopedia should go with the commonly accepted linguistic description - so it should read "Serbian,Bosnian and Croatian".

@Antidiskriminator - How is Bosnian language not defined as official? The constitution clearly says that a) whatever the Bosniaks speak, it's co-official, and b) whatever the Bosniaks speak, it's different from what Croats and Serbs speak. So how else would you interpret the constitution other than concluding that what we call Bosnian language is official? Timbouctou (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I proposed to state that Bosnian/k language is official although it is not defined as official in constitution. There is an ocean of sources about this issue. Here are some of them:

1. (the Serb-run entity will not accept the expression 'Bosnian language').
2. At Dayton in 1995, the constitution of the Republika Srpska allowed only Serbian as an official language, providing a mirror image to the exclusivity of the Federation constitution: .... the only permissible language in the Republika Srpska after Dayton was Serbian. This remained the case until 2004, when Amendment LXXI provided the following more inclusive rewording: “The official languages of the Republika Srpska are: the language of the Serb people, the language of the Bosniak people and the language of the Croat people. The official scripts are Cyrillic and Latin.” As an advance upon Dayton, this 2004 amendment now allowed three official languages and two official scripts. But note that the names of the languages are absent, the Serb community unable to countenance use of the overall term “Bosnian” for a language which its own community (and the Croat community) in Bosnia does not speak.

Wikipedia should describe the situation, not judge who is right. That is why I also proposed a note after Bosnian language to clarify position of Serbian Republic toward its name.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Everything you quoted says that politicians in RS are against using the expression "Bosnian language", even though the constitution they wrote says that whatever Bosniaks speak is official - and that it is different than what others speak. Wikipedia describes the situation, but it is not obliged to pretend that deliberately vague terms are valid. E.g. if American congress proscribed tomorrow that the official languages of USA are "the language of whites" and "the language of blacks" and "language of others", Wikipedia article on USA would still list the official language as "English". There's no doubt that what RS constitution is talking about is what Wikipedia calls Bosnian language, and there is no reason not to say so in the article. Timbouctou (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There are two points of my position:

1. To present the official languages as Serbian, Bosniak and Croatian
2. To inform the readers about the dispute regarding the Bosniak language with a note.

In all your comments you argue with me like I am against the point number 1, although I clearly supported it from the beginning of this discussion. On the other hand, you ignored my explanations that readers should be informed about the dispute regarding the name of one of three official languages and that the constitution of Serbian republic does not use the term Bosniak language.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above, and we already have a note explaining the unusual constitution wording in the infobox. Timbouctou (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that the consensus is clear. CarRadovan, please do not continue with edit warring. The content of the wikipedia articles is based on consensus, grounded in wikipedia policies and sources. Although your position is understandable and supported with sources please understand that you failed to gain consensus for it. If you insist on your position please initiate some process described at WP:DR instead of edit warring. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It's nice that we all agree, but it seems one editor with ownership tendencies trumps any consensus. How lovely. Timbouctou (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia article on USA doesn't list English as the official language as it specifically states "Official languages: None at federal level". Only the national language is given and that being English language. So if at some point in the future the United States Congress proscribed that the official languages of USA are "the language of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants", "the language of the African-Americans" and (e.g.) "the language of the Indigenous People", we would be faced with a problem as we would be presented with official language(s) that previously wasn't there and we wouldn't know what it is (they are). The analogy isn't good. Also, as far as I can tell nowhere in the aforementioned parts from the constitution of Republika Srpska it is stated that "whatever Bosniaks speak is different from what other speak". Come to think of it, one could even interpret the sentence so that "the language of the Bosniak people" and "the language of the Croat people" could be one and the same. Or maybe even any other combination of the two languages - as long as there is mentioned the third one which makes the plural in "The official languages of the Republika Srpska are" makes it meaningful. Therefore, I'd say that deliberately vague wording might also be the product of a position that some of these may be the one and the same language - as it is implied in the current state of the article: the infobox gives "(because there is no consensus whether this is the same language or three different languages)". Previously I had a thought about simply bringing Serbo-Croatian as an alternative to the solution of the vague wording, but in a rather unpleasant discussion an editor convinced me that the plural in the constitution is an insurmountable obstacle. But rereading the sentence in question I'm thinking that what currently stands in the article (about consensus on there being several different languages or one and the same) does have a point. I suggest we reconsider other wording - something on the line with what is in the constitution maybe. Or perhaps introduce something like National language along with the three. Or even exclude them altogether - leaving only a note similar to one that currently stands. --biblbroks (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Opinions or facts

Everything, what you said is just yours opinions. However, it is much less important in relation to the facts, and the facts are the text of the Constitution - (Article 7).

Here is the end of the story, and yours and my opinion is only opinions. --CarRadovan (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What the constitution presents is also just an opinion, and it does not have the power to trump reality which encyclopedias describe (if the constitution proscribed that the sky in RS is actually green, we would certainly ignore its opinion in our articles on sky and on RS). In addition, editors are supposed to seek consensus and I don't see anyone convinced by your argument (which essentially boils down to your opinion about the relevance of the constitution's opinion :-). Timbouctou (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If the Constitution was written that the sky is green, then we should be here to write the Constitution says that the sky is green, ... but we can in note can put that's position of the Constitution. --CarRadovan (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Representative Offices

I recommend the removal of the map which shows countries in red where the Republic maintains an office. It overstates the significance as eg. Russia showing a large land mass on a world map simply because a contentious office is maintained in the country. Such map hardly contributes to regional harmony, or at least over dramatises the office. In a word, the map is meaningless.

Serbian Cyrillic script in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Discussion at Talk:Serbian_Cyrillic_alphabet#Serbian_Cyrillic_script_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina, with the question "Should the name of Serbian Cyrillic script in Bosnia and Herzegovina-related articles (predominantly Republika Srpska-related articles) be simply "Cyrillic"?"--Zoupan 02:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

Vandalization?

There was a recent edit saying the country was formed on genocide, which is a bit biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VCS777 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted that addition. While some commentators argue this, we shouldn't be stating it as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"Administrative entity"

The current first sentence of the article defines Republika Srpska as an "administrative entity". However, this term is not grounded in the constitution of neither Bosnia and Herzegovina nor of Republika Srpska. The Bosnian constitution speaks merely about "entities". In addition, entities have "administrative units" (article III, paragraph 3b), implying that an entity is not an administrative unit itself. The constitution of Republika Srpska defines RS as a "constitutional-legal entity" (ustavno-pravni entitet). I therefore believe the term "administrative entity" is incorrect and should be replaced either by "entity" or by "constitutional-legal entity". BlueRoar (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the constitution simply uses "entity", but I think the article needs to clarify what type of entity is meant by this, given that there are many different types of entity (e.g. a business entity). There are secondary sources that support "administrative entity", such as this and this. I'd be interesting in seeing sources for alternative descriptions. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Opposed to the opinion that entities are of administrative nature there is a lot of sources understanding entities as federal units, e.g. here or here. Both "administrative" and "federal" units in a wiki article on RS can be seen as biased because the former would be favoured by the Bosniak political elite and the latter by the Serb elite. That makes this topic highly sensitive and therefore the article should stick with legalistic neutrality and refer to RS as to an "entity" or "constitutional-legal entity". My suggestion of the article´s beginning would be this:

"The Republika Srpska (Serbian Cyrillic: Република Српскa, pronounced [repǔblika sr̩̂pskaː] ( listen)) is one of two entities, of which consists Bosnia and Herzegovina, the other being the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina." BlueRoar (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The "of which consists Bosnia and Herzegovina" part doesn't quite work grammatically, I feel. Back to the issue of the label, I agree that "federal" is also used. Are there reliable sources that use "constitutional-legal entity" or "ustavno-pravni entitet"? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Constitution of RS says it is "ustavno-pravni entitet", translated into English, in fact, as "constitutional and legal entity" (link. I think the valid constitution is quite a reliable source :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueRoar (talk • contribs) 22:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer a secondary source, and I wonder about the implications of using the RS constitution as opposed to the BiH one. Also, should the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina article describe that entity using the same term? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Added "constitutional and legal entity".--Zoupan 22:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

Infobox footnote c

There's a footnote c in the infobox but I don't see a superscript c anywhere. --71.183.137.40 (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Republika Srpska Population Census (2013) - Published Results

Results of the most recent population census in Bosnia-Herzegovina (from 2013) for the entity level (Republika Srpska) have been officially published on March 22, 2017. Here they are (note: not in English): http://www.rtrs.tv/vijesti/vijest.php?id=246918 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.108.36 (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Republika Srpska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6DXNCMuHF?url=http://www.ustavnisud.org/upload/4_8_2009_48_ustav_srpski.pdf to http://www.ustavnisud.org/upload/4_8_2009_48_ustav_srpski.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118131924/http://www.ohr.int/print/?content_id=7474 to http://www.ohr.int/print/?content_id=7474
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090406123518/http://www.ustavnisud.org/html/pravno%20utemeljenje/ustav%20e.html to http://www.ustavnisud.org/html/pravno%20utemeljenje/ustav%20e.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419161757/http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?l=1&id=1473 to http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1473&l=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150511104546/http://www.csce.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=UserGroups.Home&ContentRecord_id=188&ContentType=P&ContentRecordType=P&UserGroup_id=62&Subaction=ByDate&IsTextOnly=True&CFID=18849146&CFTOKEN=53 to http://www.csce.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=UserGroups.Home&ContentRecord_id=188&ContentType=P&ContentRecordType=P&UserGroup_id=62&Subaction=ByDate&IsTextOnly=True&CFID=18849146&CFTOKEN=53
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100401005601/http://www.rzs.rs.ba/Publikacije/RSuBrojkama/RSuBrojkama2009.pdf to http://www.rzs.rs.ba/Publikacije/RSuBrojkama/RSuBrojkama2009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622085053/http://www.fzs.ba/Dem/stanovnistvo-bilten110.pdf to http://www.fzs.ba/Dem/stanovnistvo-bilten110.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nezavisne.com/vijesti.php?vijest=4941&meni=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090611050556/http://www.narodnaskupstinars.net/lat/zakoni/zakon.php?id_zakona=110 to http://www.narodnaskupstinars.net/lat/zakoni/zakon.php?id_zakona=110

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Republika Srpska for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Republika Srpska is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Republika Srpska until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• NKD138 Ferhadija2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Country vs Entity within

@Sadko: I don’t think BiH is an entity like Republika Srpska. One is a country, the other an entity within. Not sure what was meant by fair here? Unless by other Entity you mean Herzegovina? Because Bosnia and Herzegovina is the name of the country I thought. OyMosby (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The country is largely decentralized and comprises two autonomous entities: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

So the name of the Country is not Bosnia and Herzegovina?OyMosby (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand your point and I do not see any real problem here. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The point is you are comparing a country to an entity within it to be “fair” but it doesn’t make sense as Bosnia and Herzegovina is the name of the country. So putting BiH and RS in the same sentence implies equal status which is misleading. It would be like saying Serbia and Vojvodina. OyMosby (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Entity does has its own borders which have been defined by Dayton Agreement and later state laws. If you find it troubling, and I for one do not see it that way, you can add "Federation" in front of BiH. That would be correct. The comparison fails as Serbia has no entities. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Vojvodina is an autonomous province. My comparison is that you can not compare a territory within a country to the country itself.. My comparison does not “fail” as the principle stands. Comparing countries to entities, provinces etc to the country themselves. The entity RS is not a country Or equivalent to BiH. Sorry. I’m sure you don’t see the issue, and don’t worry, I’m not “troubled” by it, but for the sake of being accurate to the reader, the term “Federation” would make sense along with context of the country they exist in. Most people aren’t aware of these various entities and titles. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Made a small edit. Please have a look if you agree. Take care.OyMosby (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It's fine. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Also it seems some sources are missing for the paragraph specifically about Roman era subject matter. I’ll try to locate some as the source in the second paragraph doesn’t seem to cover it. OyMosby (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Images

@OyMosby: @WEBDuB: We can have a discussion about the images here. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Both of us engaged in reverts yet only I was warned. Beside that hypocrisy, images were removed under a diff claiming only to add images. That was my only issue. Not the additional images with which I have to qualms.

It's not true, double check. :) That seems like a silly reason for edit-warring. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Both I and WEBDuB reverted twice. Their diff lacked discussion of removals. I double checked. Anyone outside can see. You agreeing with them is irrelevant. And stop spamming my talk page with false warnings or there will be other results down the road. ;) OyMosby (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I think it is more appropriate to replace the portraits of convicted war criminals with a war monument and memorials. The map I added is more comprehensive and more appropriate one for the article and the main topic. The photo of the Genocide Memorial Site is more appropriate for the content of the section. I see no reason why anyone would have a problem with this.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

WEBDuB I think both work alongside as is done for other countries and entities both memorials, maps and those who participated. Now that I don’t see why anyone would have issue with. As I said, I never had an issue with your additions but what was removed. I hd expected you to simply add the photos you saw fit. Sorry for my bluntness. OyMosby (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The stable version as edited on October 21 included a composite of Mladic/Karadzic. These two figures are probably the most important people in the short history of Republika Srpska. To remove their images from the article requires consensus.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of highlighting individuals, especially not various criminals, as the most important associations with the state, nations, etc. Moreover, the genocide is incomparably more important than Stojadinović or any individual soldier in the war. Today, in Republika Srpska, genocide is more commemorated than any battles or some of the soldiers, so there is a greater association with this territorial entity and the main topic.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Me neither, but for now I have added Plavsic who was the first female president and one of the key figures as well. Plus, we sadly have very little women presented on this and related articles. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Karadzic and Mladic were far more key figures than Plavsic despite here vile war crimes. She can be included along side if there is a concern for representation of women if you like. @Maleschreiber: I agree, those were the two key people. OyMosby (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

History section

@Sadko:, I see you removed this paragraph [3]. That drove my attention to the rest of the article that describes history of Republika Srpska as it existed from medieval times (it's poorly written mostly, I'm not implying anything). Would you agree if you removed statement above, a lot of other paragraphs could be removed and shortened? --Mhare (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, I'm not implying anything, but can you give me honest answer why does Jasenovac deserves to be in the article (I'm not comparing it in scale to anything), and Chetnik crimes (also committed on the territory of todays Republika Srpska) does not? --Mhare (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Because there were camps on the territory of modern-day Republika Srpska. Because numerous Bosnian Serbs were deported to Jasenovac, including thousands of children ("Djeca Kozare") which were lost in that and other camps. That is relevant for the topic.

@Mhare:I have nothing at all against adding info. about Chetnik actions and crimes, as well as Partisan, but we need to add context and more precise data. As for the rest, it's about the medieval history on the territory, you can find the same approach on numerous articles about provinces from all around Europe, Vojvodina included. Sadkσ (talk is cheap)

@Sadko:, Exactly. For the same reason, Chetnik stuff should stay, as the most crimes happened in eastern Bosnia, today mostly in entity of Republika Srpska, and that the reasoning you gave in edit summary was not adequate. Also, I don't have any problems with the medieval history or any other stuff in the article (aside from the poorly written paragraphs), but I just couldn't explain to myself removal of the only one paragraph that describes Chetnik atrocities. Also, removal of Jasenovac paragraph by IP editor was out of place. We should held ourself to higher standard guys. --Mhare (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. And Voijvodina is a bad example as it existed for centuries. Republika Srpska was created as an entity in the 90s yet written as if existing for centuries. Jasenovac existed in what is present-Day Croatia, so being that it is possible some Serbs from Bosnia were deported there is not RS. Nor did Republika Srpska exist at the time. This is all covered in the Bosnia and Herzegovina article. So this high focus on Jasenovac specifically seems odd for this article. OyMosby (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't research how other articles about similar topic deal with writing the history and such, and it isn't really my point here. I just wanted a honest discussion about why the whole paragraph was removed as I didn't find reason in edit summary convincing. I hope we have understanding how to proceed and not to engage in edit wars. I think we should leave the paragraph, and then specify where the Chetnik crimes occurred within the modern-day territory of Republika Srpska. @Sadko:? @OyMosby:? --Mhare (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I am all in for including the specific crimes which took place on the territory of Republika Srpska and maybe the whole country. There is quite enough of them so that we can write a short paragraph. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Why has the section on the entity's name also been removed? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I returned entity's name which someone deleted.93.136.97.142 (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Sadko then why are you deleting about the Chetniks? If it says that the Croats did it then you would leave it, like this from NDH Second World War or everything you write against other peoples in the area that can be read from your editing . This is not a Serbian wikipedia that Serbian crimes can be hidden and only that other crimes be written.93.136.97.142 (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Stop with your BS and whitewashing. I have no patience for your nonsense. Take it to kurir.rs of index.hr comment section. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not your Wikipedia you are not relevant here, and stop delete RS ,you see that others disagree with you.93.136.97.142 (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Mass deletions and insulting people is not to way to go if you have changes you think should be made on the article. It should be discussed here on the talk page, civily. OyMosby (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I hope everyone's well. I think that the photo of Jasenovac should be replaced with photos from sites within present-day RS - sadly, there are many which can replace it. Also, Following the outbreak of World War II and the invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941, Republika Srpska fell under the rule of the Nazi puppet state some parts have to be corrected as they treat Srpska as a defined geographical entity before the 1990s.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that the current picture is fine as well, as numerous Bosnian Serbs ended up in the camp. If we have alternative suggestions with pictures as well, I'll take a look. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Spomenik palim borcima VRS.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)