Talk:Republika Srpska/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Change this 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Need for edit and overhaul

message: 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)
replies: text: That's a little better.2toise 04:26, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Description of creation

message: 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)
thread_title: Internet domain

message: ...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)
thread_title:  .SR top domaine... 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. -- ChrisO 17:25, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ChrisO, I'm beginning to admire you. - Muhamedmesic 19:46, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official language(s)? 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Names of towns

message: 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 . Asim Led 04:30, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Map should be fixed

message: 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)
thread_title: An article intended to represent reality or touristic promotion?

message: 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)
thread_title: Photo section

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Muslims by nationality/Bosniaks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Increase in percentage of Serbs 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Article title?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Opinions or facts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Serbian Cyrillic script in Bosnia and Herzegovina 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalization? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox footnote c 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Republika Srpska Population Census (2013) - Published Results 

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Portal:Republika Srpska]] for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  So the name of the Country is not Bosnia and Herzegovina?OyMosby (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Made a small edit. Please have a look if you agree. Take care.OyMosby (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Country vs Entity within 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion