Talk:Republika Srpska/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Serbian Cyrillic

Stop adding unexisting "Bosnian Cyrillic", for God sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.102.144 (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Needs to be a change to the lead, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, therefore the statement, "this is being changed" (regarding the capital), is contrary to Wiki rules. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)).

Agree. It could also be rewritten to say "A law has been passed that states..." (followed by whatever, specifically, the law states). --Anderssl (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Move to "Serb Republic"

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

The result of the proposal was not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Republika Srpska → Serb Republic — I want to remind people that this is English Wikipedia, therefore it would make sense if the title of this article was in the English Language, not in the Serbo-Croat language/ Serbian Language. The article Wales is not called Cymru and the article Scotland is not called Alba, Germany is not Deutschland, Netherlands is not Nederlanden etc, so why is this article not in English? I propose that this article should be moved to Serb Republic. I believe that giving this article a Serbo-Croat/ Serbian name and not it's English name is WP:POV. Ijanderson (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose because Republika Srpska is a commonly used term in English-language sources, unlike the other examples you give. See Google Scholar for examples. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, "Republic of Srpska" is even more commonly used. Obviously WP:COMMONNAME isn't too highly regarded here :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Google returns more results for Republika Srpska. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Republika Srpska" is English - inasmuch as it is used frequently in English-language texts, and English is as English speakers do. Just look at Google Books and Google Scholar. Google counts are often spurious, but the current title has significantly more hits than the equivalent searches for "Serb Republic" ([1] and [2]). Oppose given the evidence of usage in English-language texts. Knepflerle (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose "Serb Republic" is used in English to refer to Serbia 76.66.192.91 (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. I've never heard "Serb Republic" or "Republic of Srpska". Ad hoc translations are simply WP:OR. Aubergine (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The English language version of the constitution gives the name as "Republika Srpska", so the argument about using English is an inaccurate one. The current title is English. Also, "Serb Republic" is ambiguous and most commonly refers to the Republic of Serbia, not Republica Srpska. Jafeluv (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:UE means we should use an English-language name where one exists. It does not mean we can make one up (WP:OR). 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposed name is ambiguous and an invention. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Joining the "opposition". If this is the English name, its fine by me... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Also joining the "opposition". Republika Srpska is under constitution home of 3 constitutive people and it is not just Serb republic... --Čeha (razgovor) 07:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

No mention of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic?

It is strange that in the entire article there is no mention about Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, both of whom were instrumental in the establishment of Republika Srspka during its first years.

Also absent is the Greater Serbia ideology, the underlying nationalist idea behind separating the Serbs and Serb-held territory from the former Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.--BalkanWalker (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Claims of discrimination against Catholics

The article should maybe mention that there have been repeated allegations by the local Catholic Cardinal that post-War Bosnia was essentially divided into two zones, one for the Eastern Orthodox, and one for other religious groups such as Catholics and Sunni Muslims. Now, the Cardinal says that in the Eastern Orthodox area, Catholics have not been able to return to their former homes, while in the Federation region, there have been many restrictions on the right to build churches, while mosques are simultaneously allowed to be built without any government obstructions. [3] ADM (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that saying that subject in schools are tought only in Serbian in Serbian regions is very much stupid thing to say. Anyone who knows anything about the Balkans knows that Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian are very similiar languages and its versions in Bosnia are practicly the same. There is hardly any differance between version of Serbian language in Bosnia and Croat or Muslim version of their language, except perhaps few differant words, in the same region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.67.250 (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

World War II figures

Considering the fact that Tito and Yugoslavia denied the existence of Bosnians, it is very difficult to ascertain who died during world war II considering that Bosnians were counted as Serbs or Croats. Considering the fact that the bosnians constituted an absolute majority in every single eastern Bosnian-Herzegovinian town prior to WWII, how much Serbs were persecuted is up for debate. The persecution of Serbs was mainly done in fascist controlled Sarayevo and Fascist controlled Croatia. Even when world war II ended, Bosnian nationality was denied as an attempt by Tito to make the Bosnians athiests and then have them declare themselves as Croats or Serbs.

There wasn't a single town in Eastern bosnia with a Serb majority prior to the 1992 war and the difference between the ethnic composition in Banja Luka of Bosnians and Serbs Serbs 52% and Bosnians 48%. Most people talk about how Serbs were settled in big numbers after the big earthquake where many buildings and many factories were built. Prijedor, a city where a great genocide was committed and where concentration camps were discovered was over 75% Bosnian prior to 1992. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.30.46 (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Declaration of RS and other disputed matters

The introductory paragraph states that today's RS was declared on 9 January 1992 by the Assembly of the Serb People of Bosnia and Herzegovina. While it is correct that Assembly made such declaration today's RS is not a result of that declaration but rather of a Dayton Peace Agreement (which interestingly is barely mentioned in the article). While the declaration played a part in the Dayton Peace Agreement it is not the direct nor the only reason for creation of RS as the article currently reads.

Official definition of RS is a political entity. Political divisions in BiH can be entities, a district, cantons and municipalities.

Infobox also incorrectly states that the entity was proclaimed 28 February 1992. In 1992 Assembly proclaimed independent state of Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina which was never recognized and technically seized to exits in 1995 when 49% of the BiH territory was declared Republika Srpska entity.

The History section states that " a session on 14 and 15 October 1991 the Parliament approved the "Memorandum on Sovereignty", which paved the way for secession from the Yugoslav federation". The secession of Yugoslavia was "paved" well before that which can be seen from the report of the Badinter Arbitration Committee. I think it is a more valid source that a Washington Post article.

These are just few things I found so far --Dado (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Republika Srpska didn't cease to exist in 1995, only it entered BiH; the name, institutions, symbols and most importantly constitution and laws remained and only some of it were to be changed later. Therefore, Republika Srpska has been existing continuously since 1992 what doesn't say that Dayton wasn't important because of entering BiH and international recognition. BlueRoar (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Independence referendum?

Böri (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What about an independence referendum? You need to post an actual comment as well as a header. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• There will be an independence referendum. Everyone knows that... Böri (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And your point is? We can all state things that we think will happen on Wikipedia talk pages, but the point is to improve the encyclopedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• There must be something about that on this article. That's all I want to say... Böri (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is currently mentioned at Politics of Republika Srpska but I agree that it deserves a mention here too. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Major vandalism!

This page has been vandalized entirely substituting Mrska everywhere, and should be protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.255.34.28 (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Remove link to non-existing article

In the text there is a mention of something refered to as "Srebrenica Genocide" on Wikipedia. However, such an article does not exist. Rather, it redirects to "Srebrenica massacre".

Why is this irrational mention of non-existing "Srebrenica Genocide" there at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.71.241 (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Population

Recent edits have changed some of the figures in the population statistics section of the article. I was going to check them against the source, but it turns out that no source is provided. I'm very suspicious about the "Others" data in particular, given that the figures are so small. This really needs to be sourced properly, or removed. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Check this out, [4] - though those numbers look messed up they probably are not too far from the truth - you are right that the others looks weird, so I suggest that someone looks into that. I have not been able to find anything at the UNHCR or International Management Group (IMG) which are allegedly the sources. Goodluck and let me know if you find anything. Page four here cites that, [5]

There probably was some UN thing going on though. Here, [6] there is a quote: 1996 by UNHCR recorded a postwar population of 3.9 million , so perhaps if you dug into that you might find something.

1991 data is not a problem however. Direct sources from the bosnian statistics is shown here, [7] on page 20 or 21.

I am not sure on data for 2007. It used to be up there though, and it looks somewhat reasonable- but like you say, somewhat fishy.

I am under a topic ban. So I am not supposed to discuss this stuff. I think that just giving some sources without putting my opinion, without discussing them, is no reason to get banned though. But if you want to be a jerk and ban me, be my guest - I am sure that there are many who would be happy. Sincerely, (LAz17 (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)).

Why did you not return this data dude??? At any rate, I found more information on the 1996 census... page 19 here, [8]. It was 98% Serbian in 1996. The problem is that I have a hard time finding an official source of that data. Meanwhile I shall return that data which you removed. (LAz17 (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)).

Swedish

"Adjectives derived in this way from ethnonyms are often used in Serbian, as well as other languages such as Swedish, as names of countries"

As far as I know, Swedish only uses this suffix to form names of languages, not of countries. Can someone provide an example? Otherwise, this information should be changed. --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, that reference to Swedish is irrelevant here. I've removed it. Vladimir (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)