Talk:Republika Srpska

Using modern terms to describe the nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Hello everyone,

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 The term "Bosnian Muslim" is also an outdated term that has been replaced with "Bosniak".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

DefenderOfTruthAndJustice

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

While "Bosnian and Herzegnovinan Serbs" etc. would be more technically correct than "Bosnian Serbs", the latter is the commonly used term and we should try to stick to that, per WP:COMMONAME. I agree that it is better to use Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosniaks than simply Serbs, Croats and Muslims unless the context already makes it clear. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "BiH Serbs", "BiH Croats" and "BiH Bosniaks" would be the most correct. It is a short name, and if we use prefix for 2 out of 3 nations it would be politicly correct tu use it on the third party also (as every one of them is equaly constituent and aboriginal (at least on part of BiH)). --Čeha (razgovor) 19:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm saying that we should use "Bosnian Serbs" and so on because that's the most common name used, which is what WP:COMMONAME suggests we should use. "BiH Serbs" is not a commonly used term. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If we speak of a "modern terms" then we can not use a name which includes just part of the state ("Herzegovian Serbs" are not obviously not included). Also I don't see why if two nations would have adjectives in front of them, that a third one would not (more so as it was previously caled BiH/Bosnian Muslims...). --Čeha (razgovor) 07:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The rule on Wikipedia is that we use the most commonly employed term, not the one that we think is most accurate. You'll also notice that nationalities do not always include name of the whole country in other cases. For example, the article on citizens of the United Kingdom is called British people. As for the Bosniaks/Bosnian Muslims issue, please see the Bosniaks article. Bosnian Muslims redirects there, so if you want to make an iussue of it, take it up on that article's talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There exists no dispute in calling citizens of United Kingdom British. However it exist dispute in calling people of Bosnia and Herzegovia simply Bosnians. It would be as you call somebody from Trinidad and Tobago, as person from Trinidad, when he is from Tobago. This was many times mentioned as usage of adjective Bosnian does not cover whole of Bosnia and Herzegovia. Therefore, I think that is better to let the old names then to put disputed ones in articles. There should be some wikipedian rule about that.

As for Bosniaks/Bosnian Muslims there is no issue, but if they are mentioned in contex with 2 other constitute nations and if those two nations get some adjectives before their names (there does not exist seperate ethnical groups Bosnian Croats, they are Croats by ethnicity) so should the Bosniaks get. It would be as someone would speak about Croats, Bosnia-herzegovian Serbs and Bosnia-herzegovian Bosniaks. It doesn't fit, does it? And after all there exist Bosniaks outside Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The British case does have similarities - Great Britain is only part of the United Kingdom, which also includes Northern Ireland. Britain is often used as shorthand for the UK, in the same way that Bosnia is often used as shorthand for Bosnia and Herzegovina. If you want to try to establish consensus for a new Wikipedia naming policy then please feel free to do so, but this isn't the place to have a debate about policy. You might want to try at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. On the Muslims/Bosniaks point, I think we should go for whatever is used in official Bosnian government documentation, which, as far as I'm aware, is Bosniak. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

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

You can't have double standards. In BiH goverment documentation there exist Croats and Serbs not Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs. If you wish to use Bosniak, than you have to call two other nations by it's proper names...

And for British analogy, I already told you. If Northern Irelanders are ok in them being called british (at least unionistic part of them) that is their's thing. Northern Ireland is a smaller part of UK. Herzegovina includes 20% of BiH and population there would object if you called them Bosnians. Trinidad and Tobago is a good example for that. In conclusion I would agree with Direktor. Sapienti sat.--Čeha (razgovor) 07:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, once again, per WP:COMMONNAME, "BiH Serbs" is a non-starter. However, you may have a point that it could be more consistent to simply use Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks. The first two should be linked to Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina on first mention though. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And Bosniaks (or Bosnian Muslims when they are mentioned in that way) should be linked to [[1]]. That would be it:) --Čeha (razgovor) 09:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Realy, no.

• All 3 nations are equal in BiH. If you used just BiH prefixes for Croats and Serbs and not for Bosniaks (which were previously known as Bosnian Muslims) you are alleging that 3 nations are not equal, that Bosniaks are majority, and the other nations are just minorities.
  
• People from Herzegovina (which makes at least 20% of BiH) are not known as Bosnians, and most of them would offend if you (all anybody else) would name them as such.
• History of Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina is exactly same as history of Croats in Croatia. It only diverges since 1791 till 1878 (parts of Croatia were also under Otoman rule). History of BiH Serbs is also almost indentical (most of the Serbs and ortodox belivers came to BiH after Otoman invasions and when Serbia itself was under Otoman rule). There is some divergence since Serbian independence till 1878.
• Croats in Croatia are the same nation as Croats in BiH (the same goes for the Serbs), using false names you are basicly renaming them.
• Again it seems to me that you are trying to explore lexical similarities between BosniaKs (former Bosnian muslims, which is ethnical denomination) and BosniaNs (which is regional denomination), and that are trying to make two other nations into BiH minorities (and in doing so deleting the name of the southern part of the country which do not sound as someone would wish).
• What goes for one nation of 3 equal must go for 2 others. And vice-versa.

--Čeha (razgovor) 23:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• Like I said, problem with your statment is that is POV. If you call one nation by its name, you can not change the names of other two. Muslims (with large M) was national (and not religious) name. Most of the people from that group (together with some peoples from other groups like Yugoslavs or Others) today calls itself Bosniaks. Name of Bosniaks has nothing to do with religious afilliations of Croats or Serbs.
• For Herzegovina, again, see Trinidad and Tobago. USA is a one country an one nation, and the same goes for the Germany. In BiH there is one country, but three constutive nations.
• Herzegovians are not BosniaNs. As I said most of them would take offence if you would call them as such.
• Your problem is that you are mistaking name of the one nation (BosniaK, former Muslims) with the name of citizen of it (BosniaN/Herzegovian).
• Further more, Croat is a name of a Croat ethnical group, not a citizen of Croatia. There is no difference between Croats living from any side of the borders. Same nation, same culture, same history (for most of the times). The same goes for the Serbs as well.
• If you wish to be politicly correct than you must use the same rules for every one of constitutive nations. If you don't call Bosniaks BiH Bosniaks, anybody who reads that article would think that Bosniaks are the only constitutive nation of BiH and that the Croats and Serbs came latter (which is not true, as large parts of todays BiH were integral parts of medieval Croatia, as well as some eastern provinces were from time to time part of medieval Serbia). And if you would change the names of BiH Croats and Serbs it would look like they are minorities in their own country!

--Čeha (razgovor) 09:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Čeha, once again I point you to WP:COMMONNAME. The term Bosnian is commonly used to describe people from Bosnia and from Herzegovina. See the Bosnians article, which states "Bosnians are people who reside in, or come from, Bosnia and Herzegovina". Cordless Larry (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I read that. There exist Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina as name in English language. Thanks for the link, I added Herzegovina dispute in there. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Also it is very important to underline the fact that not all BosniaNs are BosniaKs (there are one of 3 constitute nations), and that not all BosniaKs are BosniaNs (some came from Herzegovina as well)... --Čeha (razgovor) 13:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

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

RS is one of the two entities of BiH, and I dont understand your problem. Nowhere it says that RS it's a country. Furthermore I think everyone finds this infobox very resourceful, irregardless. Onyxig (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Producer, take a look at this, Template:Belgrade Indeed, non-state entities have infoboxes. Hey, could you help me here, Template:Chicagoland_Riots ? (LAz17 (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)).

We could use such an infobox for sarajevo and banja luka. Yeah? :) (LAz17 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)).

I was referring to something along the lines of this Template:Infobox BiH PRODUCER (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

AH, panimayu moj dragi rebyonak, panimayu... no, smotrit odnu strancu, Ontario (LAz17 (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)).

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

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

The article now has a holidays section so this is in hand. Hopefully this should also put a stop to the edit was over the lead. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As you correctly noticed, the removed text is not contrary to WP:LEAD. It was, nevertheless, removed with that pretext by user:PRODUCER, who was already blocked for edit warring and is subject to a permanent WP:1RR restriction on this article ([2]). Regrettably this may indicate that that user is not interested in constructively contributing to Wikipedia... VVVladimir (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I don't think that this belongs in the lead, especially since it now has its own section. No other country or region articles seem to have national holidays mentioned in the lead (although it is perhaps appropriate to mention when the entity was established). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Cant say that im surprised that your continuing with your stubborn idiotic statements like in the discussion of the history of RS. Its amusing really. I already proved you wrong before, but there's no need here since Cordless Larry already did that. PRODUCER (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As for that discussion, I still don't think that the sources you used are reliable, because CIA reports have proven to be unreliable and shaped by the current needs of the USA establishment (take the example of the "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq). However, these reports exist, and whoever finds them suitable for pushing his POV is free to use them. So it is pointless to continue that discussion.

As for the mentioning of national holidays in the lead of countries or regions, Cordless Larry is not quite right: see Switzerland and Belarus (the latter being an FA). Per WP:LEAD this bit of information should not be mentioned in the lead if it is not mentioned in the main text. Now that it is mentioned in the main text, there is no reason not to be mentioned in the lead. It is funny that producer insists on removing this bit from the lead referring to WP:LEAD, while the text of the 2nd paragraph blatantly contradicts WP:LEAD without his intervention. VVVladimir (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, but it is still clearly a minority of articles (indeed of featured country articles - though we should remember that Republika Srpska isn't a state) that feature national days in the lead, but I guess I don't really have a strong view either way as to what is best. At least it's in the main body of the article now. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

They all share the same common denominator: political entities with their own holidays. And this article is obviously not a precedent regarding this issue. The text of the paragraph runs, I think, quite smoothly, and also holidays are an important part of life of people of Republika Srpska :) VVVladimir (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Map..

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

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

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

vs

An IP made the change, without edit summary, on 1 April [3]. Would you like to revert to BH_municipality_location.svg? Writegeist (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Right now I don't know. What do others think? What are advantages/disadvantages of one map over the other? (LAz17 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)).

Republika_Srpska_simple provides more information. And BH_municipality_location looks kinda fluffy, and not so encyclopedic, IMO. Writegeist (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not encyclopedic? WTF? Do you notice that it shows all the municipalities??? That is its main advantage. (LAz17 (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)).

Still Republika_Srpska_simple is more informative. Showing boundary lines between municipalities without naming a single one of them except Banja Luka and Brčko (which is shared by the two entities) is not so useful. VVVladimir (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also propose adding Gradiška and Mrkonjić Grad, north and south from Banja Luka respectively. VVVladimir (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Add the town names to the map that shows the municipalities? (LAz17 (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)).

Good idea. It may be also good that the name "Banja Luka" is written with a bigger font and/or underscored, as it is in the above maps. VVVladimir (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead

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

Why is there no mention of Radovan Karadzic in the history section? A former president of this article is notable as is being indicted of war crimes. Why is the history section longer on this article than the actual "history of rs" article? PRODUCER (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact no person is mentioned in that section, in order to make the section as short as possible, and to summarize the main events. However, some notable persons may be added to it, there is no problem in that. The history section is not longer than the "actual history of rs article", it is easy to check. Though that article needs some serious reconsideration. 80.242.126.2 (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The source makes it perfectly clear that Karadzic is an indicted war criminal: "...Mr Karadzic and other indicted war criminals." It's simply the phrase by which people who are indicted for war crimes are described in English-speaking western countries. Writegeist (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying that a person is a war criminal, regardless of the adjective one puts before that phrase, is contrary to the presumption of innocence if that person is not validly sentenced. An encyclopedia should not repeat mistakes of some journalists, who obviously have prejudices. And the latter word can be taken here in its literal meaning derived from its Latin origin: prae 'in advance' + judicium 'judgement'. That is to say 'judgement in advance'. VVVladimir (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you not ashamed for adding text from such a source [4]? Do you really not care a bit for those people who come back to those regions where it is hard to find a job for anyone? Well, I can only congratulate to you... You seem to be lost in time, in 1992, or 1993 —- a very, very bad time to be lost in... VVVladimir (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And that sentence of Ivo Sanader you added ([5]), that is something really devastating for Republika Srpska — that is the end of Republika Srpska. VVVladimir (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What the hell? Everything I added is relevant to republika srpska, yet if it disagrees with rs or provides another side of an argument, serbian editors deem it somehow inappropriate, your pathetic. PRODUCER (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

• It mentions "war atrocities [in B-H] orchestrated by the Serbian government", although no court ever sentenced the Serbian government for any crime.
• It says that "2.2 million Bosniaks were driven out of the country", although that number is in fact the sum of the refugees and the internally displaced persons of all the three peoples in B-H ([6]).
• It says that those who returned to Republika Srpska are "often unable to find employment", giving it as a proof of discrimination, while it is a well-known fact that the unemployment is high in the whole B-H, including Republika Srpska, and that is the fact for all the citizens, regardless the nationality and the refugee status.
• It says that children of those who returned have to attend "Serbian" schools, putting the word Serbian into the quotes, which is a sign of contempt, and which is shamefully repeated in that edit by that user (is that how an encyclopedic article should be written?). The curriculums of the subjects taught in Republika Srpska's schools are created by expert teams of the Ministry of Education of Republika Srpska, a legal body of the legal government of the legal entity of Republika Srpska. Adding such a contemptuous text is outrageous. If those children have to listen their lessons in Serbian, at the same time children of the Serbs who returned to the Federation have to listen their lessons in what is called Bosnian language there. And talking about languages in this context is actually rather absurd, because there is no difference worth mentioning between these languages.
• The issue of the health insurance is (or probably by now was) a problem of only a small number of those who returned to Republika Srpska, and the cause of that is of purely administrative nature on the level of the whole B-H. In fact, people have more problems with the health insurance in the Federation ([7]).
• Throughout the whole text, the name of Republika Srpska is contemptuously put between the quotes – "Republika Srpska".

The political demands listed at the conclusion of that text are its actual purpose. All in all, such a source is completely unacceptable for an encyclopedic article. The Government of Republika Srpska and other institutions do help in solving problems of those who return to their homes in Republika Srpska (for example [8] and [9]), though probably even more should be done in that respect. VVVladimir (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You’re really one to talk, what with taking my edits personally and going as far as posting to whine about them and question my morality. The STP is one of the biggest human rights organizations in Europe; it has advisory status at the United Nations and participatory status with the Council of Europe. It is a reliable source.

• Plenty of Serb officials were indicted or convicted of war crimes including top officials like Karadzic, Mladic and Milosevic. [10] [11][12]

• "2.2 million Bosniaks" is obviously a mistake as it says immediately right after that "8,373 Bosnian men and boys were killed by the Serbian army in the UN protect zone of Srebrenica."

• You can still nonetheless be discriminated against while looking for employment.

• This is a scare quote, a bit quick to jump to contempt aren't we?

• The majority of your claims are original research, we are discussing RS not FBiH.

You really think a source leading to a dodik interview is going to convince me? [13] As for the "progress" in Bjelina, after how many years? [14] PRODUCER (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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

• No court ever adjudged that the Serbian government is guilty of orchestration of war atrocities or war crimes, so that claim is obviously wrong.

• The text says 2.2 million Bosniaks, and an attempt to justify that falsehood as a "mistake" just won't do, especially considering the political demands at the conclusion.

• The text gave no proof that being "often unable to find employment" is a consequence of discrimination, and not the general situation in B-H.

• It would be nice if it were just "scare quotes", but the context of that whole passage shows a clear disrespect for the schools of Republika Srpska. This may be someone's personal opinion about the schools, but putting it in an encyclopedic article is unacceptable.

• The problems of some with health insurance came from the administration on the level of B-H, and this has nothing to do with discrimination. This is not my discovery ([15]), and there is also no other OR in what I wrote.

• The progress is made, and this is the current state of things, which is the most relevant.

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

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

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

As for the reliability of of the text by the Society for Threatened Peoples as a source for an encyclopedic article, I gave above arguments against it, I'm not sure have you read that. I do not question the reliability of the International Crisis Group and the US Helsinki Commission, but the material from their reports is incorrectly presented in the post as applying to the present time, while they were written in 2001 and 2002. And much has changed since then. That is the reason why I removed them. I know that the user provided references, but I suppose not anything can be added to wikipedia's articles only because a reference is attached to it. VVVladimir (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I did look at the previous discussion, and I don't disagree with some of the general comments you made, but STP's statements shouldn't simply be discarded because they're POV or something like that--it's hard to find non-POV references in a matter like this. And I agree that not everything that is "printed" should be added to Wikipedia. What I am saying is that I believe their opinion is valid as an opinion, esp. since it's heard by the UN--you could say that I go "against" you in that respect. But I absolutely agree, and maybe I didn't make that clear enough, that their "Aide-Mémoire" cannot simply be taken as gospel truth, and the text in the article should reflect that this is a statement by an important and interested party, and in that respect I'm "with" you.

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

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

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

Producer is a confirmed biased person. He had a label in his profile that openly said that he is against Rebublika Srpska's right to exist. If that is not biased, I do not know what is. (LAz17 (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)). I have mentioned this before, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republika_Srpska/Archive_5#Criticism_of_the_Republika_Srpska_-_PROPAGANDA and the template has indeed been deleted since, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Republika_Srpska , but we can bring it back/undelete - this is possible, just to prove that Producer is biased and thus is not reliable to edit here. (LAz17 (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)). I was wrong. It's still there. He ain't fooling anyone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/User_Republika_Srpska (LAz17 (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)).

Third opinion

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

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Third opinion by anderssl

....

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

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)

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)

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" ([16] and [17]). 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.